Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2017

Opposition Motion—Minister of Finance and Conflict of Interest Act

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on being appointed his party's parliamentary leader.

Sadly, the member is attempting to muddy the waters yet again and, I do believe, to bury the fact that, last week, we lowered taxes for SMEs and implemented another tax fairness measure. This is on top of the 400,000 jobs created and the record growth that Canada is experiencing. I heard my colleague's speech, but what I did not hear was his support for the Minister of Finance's proposed reforms during the consultation period. I did not hear any glowing tribute nor calls for greater tax fairness.

That is why I would like to give my hon. colleague the opportunity to comment on the tax fairness that we are bringing to Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, as my colleague knows, this a crude attempt to change the channel. What we are talking about today is a situation where the Minister of Finance's actions resulted in his own personal gain. I know my colleague has been in the Liberal Party for a long time. I mentioned two cases in 2002 where two ministers in that same year had to resign for actions that were not nearly as bad as what the Minister of Finance did.

The current Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food had to step down for awarding a contract to a college of which his brother was the president. Art Eggleton, who was the Minister of National Defence, gave a small $36,000-contract to a company owned by his ex-girlfriend. He had to step down from his cabinet position.

We currently have a minister whose mandate letter specified, and I quote: if an official duty provides you an opportunity to further your private interests, or those of your family or friends, then you are considered to be in conflict of interest.

When he asks his next questions to my colleagues, I would like the hon. member to tell us how he feels after being misled by the Minister of Finance, who had convinced him all this time that he had put is holdings in a blind trust.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my colleague on becoming the parliamentary leader for the second opposition party. He ran a good campaign and I congratulate him.

I was listening to you in your speech and you made a list of the things that the Minister of Finance did that are unacceptable. I think that you described part of the problem—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I must remind the hon. member that he is to address the chair and not his colleague.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like the hon. member to tell me what the Minister of Finance's attitude might suggest.

How can the Prime Minister defend the indefensible actions of his Minister of Finance? As the hon. member said so well, in the past, some parliamentarians have had to resign for a lot less.

What is hidden behind the finance minister's attitude?

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot know what the Minister of Finance is thinking, but I do know that he refuses to be accountable or accept that he is accountable to Canadians and that he is currently in an absolutely untenable situation.

When the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner gave him permission to move forward, it was not exactly permission to move forward. It was more a way of telling the minister what he could not do. He decided to use a loophole to move forward without giving up his holdings. That is a problem.

The government boasts about being transparent and accountable to Canadians, but then turns around and uses all sorts of tricks to get out of being accountable. I would wait all day for an answer to the following question:

How are the Minister of Finance's actions no less serious than the awarding of a contract 15 years ago to a company that belonged to a minister's ex-girlfriend or the awarding of a contract to a college that belonged to the solicitor general's brother? Instead of the answering the question, the government seems to want to change the channel.

I hope that the government will understand the meaning of the word “accountability” sometime soon.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this chamber to speak about the government's plan to support tax fairness for Canadians, its efforts to help the middle class, and the Minister of Finance's efforts to make Canada's economy one that grows and is prosperous for every Canadian.

As members know, earlier this month, the government finished its consultations on its proposals to address tax planning using private corporations. These consultations went on for a number of months, and we heard from Canadians across the country.

I think it is fair to say that we heard from a record number of Canadians during this government's consultations. The Minister of Finance received 21,000 responses. The minister met with Canadians from St. John's to Vancouver, at round tables and also held online town halls.

I know that a number of members did the same for their constituents. As the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, it is important for me to meet as many Canadians as possible, including small business owners, farmers, and representatives from the agricultural sector to discuss the proposals.

I also used a variety of forms of media to speak to Canadians in our two official languages.

On behalf of the Minister of Finance, I would like to thank everyone that took part in the discussion. I especially want to thank them for their frank and extensive dialogue, which helped our government strike the right balance in carrying out the promise it made to Canadians in 2015 to improve tax fairness, reduce inequality in this country, and secure the means to achieve our ambitions.

Last Monday, the Prime Minister, accompanied by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Small Business and Tourism, announced the steps our government plans to take to further support Canada's small businesses. This important announcement delivered on a core commitment of our election platform. Before I get into that, however, I would like to remind my colleagues how we got to where we are today.

First and foremost, I want to assure all parliamentarians that our government is committed to guaranteeing a healthy, business-friendly economic climate, as well as protecting the ability of Canadian businesses to invest, grow, and create jobs.

In the two years since we took office, more than 400,000 jobs have been created, most of which are full-time. Due in part to strong economic growth and our government's sound, strategic investments in Canadians and for Canadians, our budget situation is better today than what we had foreseen in March. Indeed, the fiscal year that ended on March 31 saw a budget deficit of $17.8 billion, $11.6 billion less than what he had anticipated in 2015.

We are currently the fastest growing economy in the G7 by far. In the second quarter of this year, economic growth was at an impressive 4.5%. Over the last four quarters, our economy has posted the fastest growth since 2006.

This strong economic growth is proof that the plan we put in place two years ago is working. We laid the foundation for this economic growth the moment we took office. The first thing we did when we started our mandate two years ago was raise taxes on the wealthiest 1% so we could cut taxes for the vast majority of Canadians, in fact for nine million Canadians. That middle-class tax cut has been benefiting nine million Canadians, and we are proud of that. Single individuals who benefit from this tax cut are saving an average of $330 each year, and couples who benefit are saving an average of $540 each year.

Our government has also made child benefits more generous and progressive and better targeted to those who need them the most. With the new Canada child benefit, we have lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. Since July 2016, nine out of 10 Canadian families with children have received more in child benefits than they did under the previous system.

We also expanded the Canada pension plan to ensure that Canadians are better off financially in retirement. The strengthened CPP will provide more money to Canadians when they retire so they can worry less about their savings and focus more on enjoying time with their families. Strengthening the CPP will increase the maximum benefit by about 50% over time, giving retired Canadians a more dignified retirement.

Now we are moving on to the next step in our plan to grow the economy and achieve better tax fairness for middle-class Canadians. We will be the first to point to small business as one of the reasons this economy is in the enviable position it is in.

Our government has committed to ensuring that businesses are able to prosper in Canada. In keeping with that commitment, I am proud to inform the House that the Prime Minister has announced that our government intends to lower the small business tax rate in 2019, while presenting proposals aimed at correcting a tax system that is intrinsically unfair to the middle class.

Our government plans to lower the small business tax rate to 10% as of January 1, 2018, and to 9% as of January 1, 2019.

This small business tax cut is offered in recognition of small businesses' important contribution to the lives of Canadians, and their contribution to the Canadian economy. Small businesses are at the heart of the Canadian economy, represent 98% of all businesses, and account for 70% of all private sector jobs. Canada’s low corporate tax rates are aimed at encouraging capital investment in businesses. Those investments, whether to acquire equipment or more efficient technology or to hire additional staff, make businesses more productive and more competitive.

Those investments also stimulate economic growth, help create jobs, invest in our communities and raise salaries. For example, as the government lowers taxes for small businesses, we must ensure that Canada’s low corporate tax rates support businesses, rather than confer benefits we believe to be unfair and unwanted to a small number of wealthy individuals with high income, who use private corporations primarily as a tax planning tool.

We inherited a tax system that encourages the wealthiest to set up corporations to obtain a tax advantage. That creates a situation in which people earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year can sometimes have a lower tax rate than middle class workers that earn far less. That is not fair. Our government is committed to correcting that situation.

The government has presented the approach that it plans to use to better target tax schemes used by a relatively small number of high-income individuals who gain the most from the current tax rules. To that end, we rely on the comments gathered from Canadians during recent consultations on tax planning through private corporations.

We have listened to small business owners, professionals, farmers, and fishers during the consultation, and we will act on what we have heard to avoid unintended consequences.

In all cases, the changes by the government will support small businesses and their contribution to communities and to the Canadian economy, maintain a low small business tax rate and support small business owners, so they actively invest in their growth, create jobs, strengthen entrepreneurship and stimulate growth—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. There is a point of order.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know this is a difficult thing to weigh in on, yet today, in terms of staying on topic, my friend is not even making an attempt. Usually we require some attempt to at some point glance back to the topic at hand. Reciting the government's economic plan has literally nothing to do with the topic we are talking about today. At some point he has to at least reference ethics, the Ethics Commissioner, or Bill C-27.

I know there is a lot of discretion, and we allow a lot of latitude. However, I have listened to the first number of minutes of my friend's speech, and he has not made reference to what we are talking about here today once. It is just hard to say that this is an attempt, even a small attempt, to try to talk to the matter before Parliament today.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to thank the member. As he has mentioned, there is a lot of latitude when we are debating. However, the member does have to also take into account the motion.

I will ask the member to only speak on the motion, although there is some flexibility for discussion.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, regarding the motion before us, I think that it is important to note that the Finance Minister has always worked in a very proactive and very transparent manner with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner since he took office. He even did so before taking office. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner’s recommendations to the finance minister were, among others, to set up a screen preventing conflicts of interest, and to make it known to the public, which he did. That was the first thing he did. I think that what is expected of all parliamentarians is to ensure that they always follow the recommendations and rules as they were designed by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner around the general direction that was laid out for parliamentarians. That is what the finance minister did.

The minister indicated last week that he had first called the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to ensure that she was able to conduct an in-depth review of his situation and so he could be in full compliance with her recommendations at all times. He also announced that he would go beyond her initial recommendations. He decided to place all his assets in a blind trust and to divest himself of his shares in the company in question, Morneau Shepell.

If I may, I will continue my speech, which deals with the steps the finance minister has taken and the work that he has done for all Canadians. All politically-motivated distractions aside, the Minister of Finance has done legitimate work; I believe that to be the issue here, and that is what I am talking about.

One thing that was clear following our consultations is that it is important to limit unnecessary red tape for hard-working small business owners and to recognize the importance of preserving family farms, working with Canadians to ensure that family farms can still be transferred to the next generation, and relying on a gender-based analysis of the final proposals so that any changes to the tax system promote genre equity.

As the Prime Minister confirmed, we are preparing simplified proposals aimed at limiting the ability of a small number of high-income owners of private corporations to reduce their personal income tax by sprinkling their income to family members who are not involved in the business.

It must be noted that the vast majority of private corporations will not be affected by the proposed changes to income sprinkling. Indeed, only 50,000 private family businesses split their income, according to our estimates. That is a small percentage, about 3% of Canadian-controlled private corporations.

We are making changes to eliminate tax benefits that are only available to the wealthiest individuals, who can hire sometimes very costly accountants. We have listened to small business owners, professionals, farmers and fishers, and we are acting on what we heard to avoid unexpected and unwanted consequences.

The finance minister, who heard small business owners, announced that our government would not go ahead with the implementation of measures related to the conversion of income to capital gain. During the consultation period, business owners, including many farmers and fishers, informed the government that those measures could have unexpected consequences, particularly on taxation at the time of death, and create problems when a business is transferred to the next generation.

Our government will work with family businesses, including farming and fishing enterprises, so that the transfer of a business to the next generation can be as easy and efficient as possible. We also continue to carefully review all observations received by the government.

In terms of some key accomplishments, in addition to the middle-class tax cut and the Canada child benefit I mentioned earlier, I would like to highlight some of the government's other achievements to help support middle-class Canadians.

For example, over the past two years the government prioritized the movement of people and goods by making historic investments in our infrastructure. Our government made long-term investments in our infrastructure because it believes it to be crucial to the future of our country and our economy.

That is why, in our first budget, we set aside $11.9 billion over five years to support public transit, green infrastructure, and social infrastructure.

In the 2016 fall economic statement, we announced a further $81.2 billion that will go towards critical infrastructure over a period of 11 years. These funds will support public transit, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, transportation that supports trade, Canada's rural and northern communities, and its smart cities. These are investments that will improve the way Canadians live, commute and work and will also benefit our economy.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The member clearly understood the previous concern. He is contemptuous of this place if he does not speak to the motion. We all support recycling, but so far, the only thing he is recycling are the minister's own talking points. We are here not to talk about green infrastructure but ethical infrastructure, particularly within the institutions of Parliament. If he could please get off the talking points and get on with the motion, I think many of us would actually welcome what he has to say.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

First of all, thank you very much for the point of order. As I mentioned before, there is some latitude during debate, but I would remind the parliamentary secretary to look at the words of the motion, talk about the ethics, and bring it back to that motion. Members will have an opportunity to ask questions and comments and to bring that subject around again.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I will remind the member in English what I said in French, that the Minister of Finance from the very beginning, before he took office, met with the Ethics Commissioner and her staff, as is expected of all parliamentarians, including all parliamentary secretaries, ministers, and MPs, to make sure that each member, based on their given situation, respects the path she sets for us as parliamentarians and the guidelines and recommendations she puts forward.

One of the recommendations for the finance minister was to put up a conflict of interest wall that would be made public, which he did. He has always followed the recommendations of the Ethics Commissioner and, as always, worked with her and will continue to do so, even going above and beyond—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I am talking about the substance of the motion if members will let me continue without heckling.

The finance minister also mentioned last week that he would go above and beyond what the Ethics Commissioner had recommended and divest all his shares in Morneau Shepell and place all of his assets in a blind trust.

As parliamentarians, we have to look to the work of the Ethics Commissioner and her recommendations for us as we move forward to make sure that the integrity of Parliament is at all times respected. The finance minister on that front has always been forthcoming in working with the Ethics Commissioner, and will continue to do so.

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

Madam Speaker, it is disappointing to hear my colleague list the actions of his government when the motion before us is very clear. I get the impression that he did not read it.

I will nonetheless ask my colleague a question about the motion in order to maybe finally have some information about it. My question is about the fact that several of his colleagues have mentioned that they were misled by the minister. One of his colleagues from the Toronto area stated that he was sure that the minister had placed his assets in a blind trust just the day before we learned that, in fact, that was not true.

So I wonder if my colleague himself was deceived by the Minister of Finance. What was his understanding of the issue before learning that the finance minister had not placed his assets in a blind trust? When did my colleague learn that he had been deceived by the finance minister?

Maybe he could shed a bit of light on how his caucus learned that the minister had placed his assets in a blind trust, which everyone thought had already been done long ago.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, my understanding was always that the Minister of Finance, as is expected of all parliamentarians, worked with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to ensure that the rules that govern all of us in the House were respected, which he did when he took office, right after the election.

My understanding is also that recommendations that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner might make were respected, as any parliamentarian can be expected to respect the determinations and recommendations of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner when she examines a parliamentarian’s situation and makes recommendations, and that those recommendations are enough not only to comply with the law, but also to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest, which the minister did immediately after taking office. He has always implemented the recommendations that he has received from the commissioner.

Last week, he announced that he would go even further, and I would remind my honourable colleague, whom I hold in high regard, that the minister would place all his assets in a blind trust, and the he would dispose of all shares that he and his family may hold in Morneau Shepell. I think that the idea is to ensure that we always work with the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, an institution responsible for safeguarding the integrity of this Parliament.

For me, that is where I always knew the finance minister was. He is a man of great integrity who has dedicated himself to public service for the last two years and achieved remarkable results for Canadians, as I noted in my speech.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary again recycled a lot of talking points, but on the weekend on The West Block, he said that since Bill C-27 had not been adopted by Parliament, there was no conflict of interest for the Minister of Finance. When people hold something in a blind trust, they are not aware if the shares have been sold or diversified. When they hold their shares in a numbered company as the Minister of Finance has done, as a loophole so to speak, the markets react to that. Again, the efficient market hypothesis says that publicly available information is immediately digested by the markets. When we table a piece of legislation, the markets respond, putting the minister in a conflict of interest.

Does the parliamentary secretary not understand that he is actually putting up a false front for the minister? Where the heck is the minister? Should he not be coming here to speak to his own actions—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola that he is not entitled to say who is and who is not in the House.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, the Minister of Finance has always worked with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That is what members of Parliament are expected to do when they begin working in the House after they are elected.

The letter that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner gave to the Minister of Finance with her recommendations was made public last week. In the letter, she clearly states two things: first, that he is acting within the law and, second, that he should set up a screen to prevent conflicts of interest. That is what the minister did, and the screen has always ensured that he would have no involvement in any matter that could potentially affect the company in question. That was the recommendation of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, which he followed.

Now, he continues to work with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner in a proactive manner. He called her last week, wrote to her and announced that he was going to go beyond her initial recommendations by placing his investments in a blind trust and divesting himself of his shares in Morneau Shepell. I believe that these two actions show that the minister is prepared to go the extra mile.

Over the last two years, the minister left the private sector to devote himself to public service, which he has done admirably. We have the fastest growing economy of all G7 countries, our performance is higher than it has been in 10 years and unemployment is at an all-time low. I think the minister has a good track record.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

I rise today regretfully to speak in support of the motion before us. I am regretful, not because I do not support the motion moved by the third party, which I certainly do, but because we find ourselves debating not only the finance minister's original deliberate violation of the spirit of the Conflict of Interest Act and his subsequent actions, which, by all accounts, have enriched the minister as a result of his original decisions, but as well, the minister's apparent inability and refusal to recognize his several lapses of judgment, his unwillingness to accept responsibility for his poor decisions and actions, his attempt to shift responsibility and to blame the Ethics Commissioner, and, as important, his refusal to apologize to Canadians.

When an adult faces choices, he or she exercises judgment. For decades, long before the Conflict of Interest Act, with its various provisions, was passed into law in 2004, ministers of the crown either placed their wealth, including those fortunate enough to have family fortunes, into blind trusts or divested themselves of those holdings, which otherwise might benefit from their actions as public office holders, that is, as ministers.

The Prime Minister's mandate letter to the finance minister, when he was sworn in two years ago, was not specific in these details, but the PM stated, “As Minister, you must ensure that you are aware of and fully compliant with the Conflict of Interest Act”. As well, the Prime Minister stressed that “you must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality, and both the performance of your official duties and the arrangement of your private affairs should bear the closest public scrutiny.” I repeat, “closest public scrutiny”. “This is an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.”

The Prime Minister also pointed out:

If we want Canadians to trust their government, we need a government that trusts Canadians. It is important that we acknowledge mistakes when we make them. Canadians do not expect us to be perfect—they expect us to be honest, open, and sincere in our efforts to serve the public interest.

Canadians have learned very well that the Liberal government is far from perfect. In fact, in so many ways it is far from perfect, but we are here today because trust has been violated. We are talking about standards here, and because neither the finance minister nor the Prime Minister has been willing to acknowledge the many mistakes made by both in this sorry affair, this scandal is entirely of their own making. The finance minister has told us that the Ethics Commissioner advised him to choose a third choice between a blind trust or divestment, a choice not taken by any other minister of the Liberal government.

The Ethics Commissioner is on the public record saying that she informed the finance minister that there was that third way. We do not know whether she specifically red-flagged that third alternative in so many words as a loophole that she had already recommended the government should close, but I believe that any reasonable adult, certainly anyone with the business experience of the finance minister, not to mention the many financial advisors he has at his beck and call, would see that third way as a loophole that offends not only express intent of the Conflict of Interest Act but also the spirit of the law.

Then there is the matter of Bill C-27, the act tabled in the finance minister's name, that would make a number of significant amendments to the Pension Benefits Standards Act. The minister, in his previous life, spoke of the need for exactly these same sorts of amendments, amendments that his family firm, Morneau Shepell, would use to expand its client base and grow the company. We know that by not divesting all of his millions of shares in the family company, the minister had already seen his shares increase significantly in value. At the time of his election, shortly before being appointed finance minister, the shares of Morneau Shepell traded at around $15 a share. They have since increased to more than $20 a share.

However, worse than the basic violation of the spirit of the Conflict of Interest Act was the minister's sponsorship of Bill C-27, which would, as the motion before us states, “reasonably be expected to [further] profit Morneau Shepell and the Minister of Finance in light of his continued ownership of shares...through [a numbered] company he controls”, which he will continue to profit from until his belated decision to sell those shares in what he described as an “orderly” fashion. We see here a clear and evident example, a textbook example, of conflict when the minister is in charge of regulating an industry in which he has a significant personal interest.

I will reflect back on the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the Finance Minister, and the specific direction that he arrange his private affairs to bear the closest public scrutiny. Someone, the Finance Minister, and any who were aware of his choice two years ago, should have heard alarm bells, which brings me to questions that the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister have refused to answer in the House or anywhere else: When did the Finance Minister inform the Prime Minister? When did the Prime Minister learn that the Finance Minister had neither put his holdings into a blind trust or divested all of his shares two years ago?

Last week, the latest revelations from investigative journalists, the Ethic Commissioner herself in media interviews, and finally the Finance Minister himself, confirmed that he had been informed by the commissioner of a technical gap in the Conflict of Interest Act, a capital “L” loophole, if you will, that no other member of the current Liberal cabinet, and no other member of previous governments, to my knowledge, exploited. However, he used it again, in clear and deliberate violation of the spirit of the act, to push his considerable stock holdings in the company that bears his name through that loophole. This is in stark contrast to the months of hollow, so-called consultations on tax reform proposals dropped on Canadians in the middle of the summer, which were aimed at alleged loopholes too long exploited, it was said, by hard-working, middle-class small businesses, in effect characterizing Canada's hardscrabble, hard-working, middle-class small business owners as tax cheats.

It is important to remember that this is an attack on plumbers, pizza shop owners, farmers, dentists, and doctors. These so-called reforms have been pitched by bureaucrats, academics, and theoreticians inside the Finance Department for years. It is also important to remember that these reforms have been pitched to a succession of previous finance ministers, both Conservative and Liberal, and flatly rejected for all of the reasons put forward now by practising tax and pension management experts, and the thousands of middle-class self-employed entrepreneurs who see this as an unfair and destructive attack on family businesses and their employees.

There was a way that the Finance Minister might have avoided the deepening outrage and protest across the country. He might have responded by saying that he was surprised by the tens of thousands of responses, and that he needed to extend the so-called consultation period, with real consultations across the country, to familiarize himself with the multitude of different ways his reforms would negatively impact hard-working taxpayers. Instead, the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister doubled down and framed their refusal to amend or scrap the worst of the proposals in language that came dangerously close to the divisive characterizations of class war.

The Finance Minister, as has been previously quoted, has described the nation-wide opposition and our criticism of his clumsily proposed tax reforms as a distraction. It is a distraction, and a day-to-day still-deepening distraction of his own making. Now, the Prime Minister seems to have lost confidence in the Finance Minister. The PM's bigfooting of the Finance Minister at a press conference last week, saying that he would answer the minister's question, sent an ominous, not to mention arrogant message to the minister and to Canadians.

The motion before us calls on the government to immediately close these loopholes and apologize to the House and to all Canadians.

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

): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his contribution to this debate, which is as important as it is timely given everything that is going on with the Minister of Finance.

Does my colleague have anything to say about this easily closed loophole that is now being called the Morneau-Shepell loophole? The motion before us today proposes to close that very loophole. What does he think about that?

I know that his government was in power when the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner recommended closing the loophole. I was wondering if he had any information for us about why it was not done before. Given his experience in politics and the many ministers he has seen come and go in the House even before he was elected, since I know he was a journalist before he became a member, has he ever seen similar situations and, if so, how did they turn out?

Earlier, my NDP colleague said that some ministers in similar situations had resigned, so now I would like his views on what he has seen happen in the past.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for a couple of very important and relevant questions to this debate. It is true that in 2013, the Ethics Commissioner made quite a few recommendations in her annual report for improvements that might be made to the Conflict of Interest Act, which was at that time about nine years old. The reason it was not acted upon was that there was no clear and pressing need to block attempts, such as we have seen by the current finance minister, to exploit some of those imperfections in the original act. To my knowledge, going back decades, there has never been an instance where a minister of government, Liberal or Conservative, has tried to avoid either placing their holdings into blind trusts or divesting those interests.

I agree with the previous speaker's suggestion that this is in some ways more serious than some of the previous instances where we have seen ministers who had to be disciplined, in a variety of ways, for impropriety.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Madam Speaker, one thing we have to bear in mind as we go through this debate is the economic performance of Canada for Canadians that we have seen.