House of Commons Hansard #222 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was finance.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Order, please. I would ask the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, the member for Edmonton Riverbend, and the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands to try to restrain themselves and not interrupt, in accordance with Standing Order 18.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Andrew Scheer ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at what Canadians got for their $400-million Bombardier bailout. The C Series technology has been given to the Europeans, and the jobs have been sent to Alabama. Bombardier still has the $400 million, which of course it used to give its executives big bonuses. Why did the Liberals fork over the money? The finance minister had motivation to make it happen. Bombardier is a client of his family company. Can the Prime Minister explain why the only Canadians to benefit from the Bombardier deal are the billionaire Beaudoin family, and the finance minister's family fortune?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the opposition has nothing more to do than sling mud today, because the economic news from this country is better than it has been in a long time. In the last election, Canadians had a choice between the Conservative government, which had created worse growth than we needed and did not help the middle class, or this party, which planned on putting money in the pockets of the middle class and helping those working hard to join it. We have been doing that for two years and it is creating the best economic growth in the G7, and has created 400,000 jobs, most of them full time. We are going to continue—
Andrew Scheer ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, the current government certainly has spent a lot of effort making sure that money is put in the pockets of billionaire families like the finance minister and his own family fortune. Yesterday, we saw the Prime Minister trying to defend his decision to increase taxes on Canadians suffering from diabetes. In typical fashion, he blamed everybody but himself. He even tried to claim that the reason why this happened was because there are not enough people working at the Canada Revenue Agency. When will the Prime Minister come clean and just explain to Canadians why he chose to cancel much-needed help for those suffering with diabetes?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, this government will ensure that people access the benefits to which they are entitled. This is something that we are continuing to focus on. This government is focused on supporting those who need the help, on helping the middle class and those working hard to join it. We would never do anything as mean as, I do not know, cancelling health benefits for refugees or closing nine offices for veterans across this country. Those things would be simply mean, and this government would never do that.
Andrew Scheer ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the mean-spirited attack on farmers and local business owners. Let us talk about the mean-spirited attack on waitresses and retail workers having their discounts taxed. Now let us talk about the mean-spirited attack on people suffering from type 1 diabetes. It is his government's decision to cancel this much-needed benefit. What does he say to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians suffering from this disease? Why did he take their benefit away?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, as Canadians expect of us, we will ensure that everyone who is entitled to these benefits gets these benefits. Our focus is on supporting people suffering, supporting the middle class and those working hard to join it, and making sure that Canadians who need help get it.
That is why we stopped sending child benefit cheques to millionaires and instead are sending them to the nine out of 10 Canadians who actually need them. That has worked not only to reduce child poverty by 40% in this country but is also delivering the economic growth that in 10 years those guys could never get.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of National Defence had a controlling interest in a weapons company, he would be in a conflict of interest. If the Minister of Health had a controlling interest in a pharmaceutical company, she would be in a conflict of interest. If the Minister of Natural Resources had a controlling interest in an oil or gas company, he would be in a conflict of interest.
The Minister of Finance still has a controlling interest, directly or indirectly, in Morneau Shepell. This company specializes in the pension plans that this minister directly regulates.
Why does the Prime Minister continue to protect him?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the opposition's misleading insinuations are simply baseless. There is no conflict of interest. The minister took all of the commissioner's advice, including creating a screen, which the commissioner felt was the most effective measure.
The minister followed the rules. He acted in accordance with this screen and will continue to do so. That is why we continue to invest in Canadians to ensure that everyone has a better retirement.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is not what the Minister of Finance said. He said that for two years, he led his caucus, the media, his company, and Canadians to believe that he had placed his assets in a blind trust. He misled them.
Yesterday, the NDP gave the government and the Prime Minister a chance not only to acknowledge that their finance minister had shown a lack of judgment, but also to close the loopholes in the act that allow him to indirectly control holdings he cannot control directly. It just makes sense.
Why does the Prime Minister refuse to close these loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act?
Is it because they hope to continue exploiting them?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I feel bad for the NDP. Mudslinging is all they have left, because the economic news is positive and we are currently helping the most vulnerable Canadians, putting money in the pockets of those who need it the most, and creating inclusive economic growth.
It is disappointing to see the NDP taking a page out of the Conservatives' mudslinging playbook. I hope they will ask us questions about the economic growth we are creating for everyone.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The voice of the out of touch 1%, Mr. Speaker.
Has anyone ever tried to change the channel knowing that the batteries are dying in the remote and just been too lazy to get up to fix them? That is what the Liberals were doing yesterday, trying to change the channel. However, Canadians are not buying it. Rather than admit they screwed up and close the Morneau Shepell ethical loopholes, the Liberals actually voted against doing so.
The Prime Minister must believe there are two sets of rules, one for him and his buddies and another set for everyone else.
While Canadians are worried about protecting their pensions, why is the Prime Minister only worried about protecting his finance minister?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, over the past weeks I have been criss-crossing the country and talking with voters in Alberta and Lac-Saint-Jean about the issues they are facing. The people who were talking with me were grateful for the Canada child benefit that helps nine out of 10 Canadian families, grateful that the first thing we did was lower taxes on the middle class and raise them on the wealthiest 1%, and pleased that we are now lowering small business taxes to the lowest rate in the G7.
These are the kinds of things that help Canadians. These are the kinds of things we are happy to be talking about.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
He did not just criss-cross this country, Mr. Speaker, he double-crossed this country.
I am about to ask the Prime Minister of Canada a clear and direct question. Would anyone like to bet whether he is actually going to answer? Let us find out.
In less than an hour I am going to table a motion at ethics committee inviting his finance minister and the Ethics Commissioner to come forward and testify, to tell us exactly how this mess all started in the first place, and to work with us to close these ethical loopholes.
If the Prime Minister really wants to clear the cloud over his finance minister's head, will he allow the minister to show up or will he once again shove him aside and out of the way? What is it going to be?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we are incredibly pleased with the work of the finance minister. He has lowered taxes for the middle class and raised them for the wealthiest 1%. He has put more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 Canadian families by delivering a Canada child benefit that is not only lifting hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty across this country, but creating economic growth of the type that is the best in the G7.
Whether it is increasing the GIS for seniors, whether it is making sure there are more up-front grants for students going to university, these are the kinds of things that are making a difference.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister forked over $400 million to Bombardier. Now we know that Alabama got the jobs, Europe gets the planes, the billionaire Bombardier Beaudoin family gets the money, and taxpayers get the bill.
Who benefited from this?
We now know that the company Morneau Shepell has Bombardier as a client. What else is the finance minister hiding in his vast network of numbered companies and trust funds?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I was happy to talk with people in Lac-Saint-Jean about Bombardier, about the work we are doing to protect aerospace workers, about the work we are doing to protect forestry workers, about what we are delivering for agricultural communities and families, and about what we are delivering directly to Canadians and the nine out of 10 families who need help with the Canada child benefit.
These are the kinds of things that people were talking to me about, and the Conservative Party is once again showing itself to be completely out of touch with the priorities of Canadians. I cannot say that I mind, but it is amusing to see that they have not learned any lessons in two years.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, we are not looking for some intimate detail of the finance minister's personal life. We do not care what he had for breakfast or what kind of socks he wears, but we do care about the fact that he controls $330 billion of other people's money.
He hid his offshore company in France, he hid his $20 million share in his family business. What else is he hiding in his vast network of numbered companies and trust funds?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know there is a lot of back and forth that goes on in this House, and one of the things that matters to them is that we have a commissioner who is in charge of ensuring that the behaviour of all of the people in this House meets the high standards of Canadians.
The Minister of Finance worked with the Ethics Commissioner, followed her advice, and is willing to go above and beyond what she recommended two years ago. Those are the facts of the matter.
The fact that the members opposite are trying to sling mud simply highlights the fact that we need to focus on the Ethics Commissioner and what she actually determines and decides, not the partisan attacks from the opposite side.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, when someone controls $330 billion of other people's money, that someone's financial business is everyone's business.
The new infrastructure bank will allow the finance minister to give out billions of dollars in loans and loan guarantees to companies that he may well own within his numbered companies and trust funds. However, the Prime Minister is not insisting that he be transparent with the taxpayers who will have to pay for those very loans and loan guarantees.
Therefore, once again, will the Prime Minister require that his finance minister reveal to all Canadians what he holds in his numbered companies?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, once again, we have an adversarial system in this House that requires the members opposite to try to attack and ask whatever questions they have. However, Canadians are reassured to know that we have a Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner who oversees the actual behaviours of everyone in this House and makes determinations on how they should move forward. That does not take away from the opposition's responsibility to try to make partisan attacks, but it should reassure Canadians that the finance minister worked with the commissioner and followed her recommendations.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants us to accept that the finance minister filed a secret report to the Ethics Commissioner in which he supposedly revealed what exists inside his vast network of numbered companies and trust funds.
We already know that he hid from the Ethics Commissioner his offshore company in France. He hid from Canadians his $20 million share in Morneau Shepell. The only way for us to find out if he is hiding anything else and if he is profiting privately from his public powers is for him to reveal what is inside those companies. Why will he not?
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the fundamental question here is whether or not the opposition trusts the Ethics Commissioner to be professional and to do her job. I can understand the personal attacks they feel are their best way to play politics, but the fact is, we trust the Ethics Commissioner and we follow her advice, which is exactly what the finance minister did. All the rest is just partisan noise from the opposition.
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Finance presented a hastily thrown together economic update to try to make Canadians forget about his ethical lapses, but Canadians are not fools.
This government's most important minister is in the midst of a very serious ethical crisis. For example, he introduced a bill that directly benefits his family company. In short, the action he took as minister will make his family and his company richer. That is just one example we know of. Imagine what we do not know.
Does the Prime Minister realize that he must absolutely ask the minister to disclose all of his assets in order to clear the air?