Debates of Nov. 21st, 2017

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, the wildfires in interior British Columbia were some of the most devastating wildfires ever seen in literally generations. It is our hope that the people who were affected by them are recovering.

I also want to acknowledge the first responders who did a magnificent job at containing, as much as they could and as best they could, the wildfires that took place.

It is on this premise that my hon. colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap has brought this private member's bill to the House. The interesting part about this is the support he has received from the various organizations that were, first and foremost, on the ground fighting those fires. They had to deal with equipment having been tampered with or stolen. They are the ones who are solidly in support of what my hon. colleague has brought forward.

In his speech, my colleague spoke about the International Association of Fire Fighters, the Volunteer Firefighters Association of BC, the Fire Prevention Officers Association of BC, and the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs. These groups represent 3,500 fire stations in the country. They are solidly behind the legislation and the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code.

I bring a different perspective to this. As some members are aware, I spent over 30 years as a firefighter. I understand the life safety issues. I understand as well the importance of having proper functioning equipment available as a matter of safety. Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House today and support what my hon. colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap has proposed.

Just for review and as a matter of background, my colleague has proposed amendments to the Criminal Code to establish specific penalties relating to the theft of firefighting equipment. The bill would also create an aggravating circumstance for sentencing for mischief involving firefighting equipment. Finally, the bill would establish sentencing objectives in relation to the theft of firefighting equipment.

While the Criminal Code currently contains a maximum penalty of a life sentence for mischief causing actual danger to life, which could be applied to tampering or vandalizing firefighting equipment, it does not contain an offence for theft creating actual danger to life. The bill seeks to establish such an offence for theft of firefighting equipment that creates this danger of life. The bill also seeks to provide judges with greater flexibility and crown counsels with more tools when dealing with mischief or theft related to firefighting equipment causing actual danger to life.

I can speak to that issue specifically. In my time as a firefighter, I know all about the preparation it takes and the level of training involved in using the equipment that is available. If that equipment is not available to firefighters, if it has been tampered with or if it has been stolen, then what good is it to firefighting crews?

As the hon. member said, it was not just the interior wildfires of BC where firefighting equipment was stolen or tampered with. It happens right across the country in larger cities such as Toronto, Halifax, and Vancouver, where on a day in and day out basis firefighting crews deal with the theft of equipment. In some circumstances and based on what is happening at the scene and inattention of the crews, they may not necessarily know that equipment has been stolen until they get to the scene of a fire or until they get to the scene of a medical emergency, such as a car accident or a pedestrian having been struck. Then they are not able to deal with the situation because some of the equipment has been either tampered with or stolen.

If there is anything this piece of legislation does, it is that it would provide a deterrent to those who are thinking about tampering with or stealing firefighting equipment from those who protect us and those who need that equipment the most.

As I said earlier, the summer of 2017 was the worst wildfire season in British Columbia's recorded history. Many circumstances arose, and the hon. member from the NDP talked about some of those situations, where firefighting equipment was tampered with and stolen. That is when firefighters need the equipment the most. The bill's proposed three additions to the Criminal Code are related to this. The key aspect of the bill is that it deals with causing danger to life. Causing danger to life is not a new term within the Criminal Code, but this bill speaks specifically to the issues of tampering with or theft of firefighting equipment. As members have heard, subsection 430(2) of the Criminal Code prohibits mischief causing danger to life and prescribes a maximum life sentence for this new offence. Therefore, the new offence of theft of firefighting equipment causing actual danger to life would be consistent with the offence of mischief causing danger to life.

We have heard some of the arguments and counter-arguments that have been made about this and I find it surprising that there would not be broad-based support. We talked about not using the rhetoric of “tough on crime” and using it as a deterrent. If we cannot use this as a deterrent either for those B.C. wildfires or for municipal firefighters to protect our firefighters and therefore protect the people they would deal with in any lifesaving emergency, then I cannot understand whom we are trying to protect in that situation.

I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada spoke about the fact that the justice minister, per her mandate letter, is reviewing all aspects of the Criminal Code. What the hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap is asking for is a specific amendment to the Criminal Code based on what he has heard from those who are first and foremost affected by this situation. That is not only the firefighters who dealt with the situations in British Columbia, but also firefighters right across the country. Therefore, it is important to understand that we need to support those who support us with respect to emergency responders, and that is why I am asking for the support of my colleagues here in the House.

I also want to bring up an interesting discussion that I had recently. As most members of the House will know, the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs had a lobby day on Parliament Hill. Members of the association spoke about a situation that the government should be looking at with respect to heavy urban search and rescue teams. Like our American friends and firefighters from other countries, Canadian firefighters often go to the U.S. to assist with fire disasters and large and extreme forest fires. It is interesting that in spite of the fact that HUSAR teams are funded by the government, Canadian HUSAR teams are not qualified for the International Search and Rescue Advisory Group, which means that international deployment is good for international relations and international reciprocity. Canadian heavy urban search and rescue teams are looking for the same treatment as forest fire suppression teams and to be able to move across borders to assist and train. I know that people were on the Hill asking for the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to build up HUSAR task forces qualified to deploy across not just provincial boundaries but also international boundaries.

As I said at the onset, the interesting part of this is that the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap says that there is broad-based support among the firefighting community for this type of amendment to the Criminal Code, not just to protect the fire chiefs' firefighters, the International Association of Fire Fighters, but also to make sure they are capable and have the ability to protect communities across this country.

It is for that reason that I am proud to stand today and support my hon. colleague for what I think is a bill that is needed and wanted by our firefighting community.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and address the House on a number of different types of issues that are brought forward. I understand and appreciate why the member has brought forward this legislation. During the press statement, the member said his objective was to try to fill a gap that he believes exists within the legislation. It is very admirable that the member looked at ways in which he might be able to assist.

I have had opportunities over the years to work very closely with first responders, and in particular, firefighters, not only here in Ottawa but also in my home province of Manitoba. Whether it is provincial legislation or federal initiatives that have been taken, there is no doubt there are things government can do to try to make a difference.

I think of individuals like Alex Forrest, who has done a fantastic job of expressing the needs of firefighters. Often when we think of firefighters, we think of those who are being paid, but there is a significant contribution that individuals make as volunteer firefighters. I would like to start by acknowledging the efforts of firefighters for the fine work that they do, day in and day out, never knowing when they are going to be called out, but always being prepared to meet the call, whatever it might be.

We hear a lot about the significant forest fires in the province of British Columbia this past year. When we had our national caucus in Kelowna, a number of my colleagues talked a great deal about the forest fires in B.C. in terms of the impact not only in the local communities but far beyond. I think of northern Alberta where the entire community of Fort McMurray was literally destroyed and how the firefighters came to the plate not only at the time but also afterward. Throughout communities in British Columbia and Alberta, individuals come out in a very tangible way to repair the damage that has been caused by fire.

As a whole, people are very much aware. I have had the opportunity to see a prairie fire and how quickly it spreads with a marginal wind. It can be a very scary situation in rural communities where we try to do what we can with water bombers or individuals on the ground being cognizant of their environment and how quickly a gentle shift in wind can change the dynamic quite significantly. It is very dangerous, and we want to ensure that we have the best equipment for Canadians to fight fires, particularly in remote or rural communities or municipalities, no matter what size they might be.

When I look at the legislation, I can appreciate the message the member is trying to get across. The parliamentary secretary responded to the member's legislation after he introduced it, and in essence said this and I want to repeat it. When the member talked at the press conference, from what I understand, he talked about filling a gap.

It is important that we recognize that offences in general application, including theft, mischief, mischief endangering life, and criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm, could be used in the circumstances where firefighting equipment is stolen or vandalized. I do not think I am alone in making this suggestion. I do not think that there really is a gap, and do not necessarily concur with the member's comments that the proposed legislation is warranted, or at least in his explanation he was not able to convince me that it is warranted. However, I understand and appreciate just how important it is that firefighters have the necessary equipment to combat fires.

I will make a different suggestion to my colleagues across the way on this issue. I believe we can do more through education than we can through this type of legislation. This is an area I would love to see more discussion and debate on inside the chamber. The educational component is very important.

I made reference to the spreading of a prairie fire. I think most Canadians would be quite surprised to learn how quickly a large area can be consumed by fire. We are not talking about hours, but in minutes acres of land with trees or prairie grass can be consumed. Also, many of these fires are not caused by natural disasters. They can occur from open-pit fires, for example. I do not believe that we do enough in terms of promoting and encouraging education on these types of things.

As much as I appreciate what the member across the way is advocating, I am not sure if in fact this is an area that really needs to see new legislation. At times the Conservative Party tends to want to sound tough on criminal activities, but if we take a look at the current criminal laws in place, I believe they suffice and do meet these needs.

The Prime Minister always talks about room to improve and that we can always do better. One area I would suggest that we could improve and do better on is providing more leadership on the issue of general awareness and public education, and getting the different stakeholders together in terms of what it is that we could be doing from a national perspective. I do not want to be critical of municipalities or other organizations that are out there, but I think that we need to see more of a coordinated approach in dealing with issues such as this through education, whether it is in our schools, public advertising through different budgetary allotments, municipal, provincial, or even national. This would go a lot further in protecting our firefighters and so forth.

One of the biggest initiatives that I want to make reference to is the creation of the fund for families of firefighters who fall in the line of duty, which the government recently initiated. It shows that the government is open and listening to what our firefighters have to say. Also, when I was in the Manitoba legislature, we looked at ways in which we could make changes to workers compensation to assist our firefighters.

I am very much open to ideas about how we can improve the environment in which our firefighters are called upon to serve. I respect the fine work they do day in and day out. I commend all of the firefighters who have been combatting fires in Alberta, or anywhere in Canada, and particularly in the province of British Columbia because of its difficulties this past year.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap for this piece of legislation. As I listened to the debate tonight, I want to express how profoundly disappointed I am in the response from both the NDP and the Liberal members, who have indicated that they are not going to support this piece of legislation. When I first heard about what he was proposing, and I saw the bill tabled, having gone through the worst fire season in British Columbia, and having lived in the midst of it, I was very excited about what he was looking at doing. There are times in this House where we are very disappointed with what the other parties do and how they respond. Certainly, there is no question that this is one of those times.

We need to put this into a bit of perspective. I will focus predominantly on our volunteer fire departments, our first nations fire departments, who work their hearts out to support communities. They fundraise for their equipment. They train every weekend or one evening a week, then are called to go to very difficult circumstances and can arrive there and find out that someone has stolen their hose or played with their regulator and has put their life in danger.

Just as we recognize that sometimes when things happen in, for example, a church situation there are aggravating circumstances, I would suggest, and I hope I will be able to articulate this more, that this is another example of a very important aggravating situation, and I really wish those parties would reconsider their position.

I look forward to having eight minutes later.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo will have eight minutes remaining in her time when the House next resumes debate on the question.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Families, Children and Social Development

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I stand again in the House to talk about the deep need for Canadian women and families to have access to affordable, universal child care in our country. Something most other OECD countries have, Canada still does not.

This is the argument. Families need universal, affordable, accessible, publicly-funded child care to get women into the workforce. Universal child care would create jobs and the fiscal surplus generated would mean no net cost to taxpayers. Child care workers need better wages to ensure their own economic security and also to encourage their retention in the field.

Again and again, we hear the cost to families of unaffordable child care. Women tend to earn less than their male counterparts because there is no pay equity legislation in Canada. The government has still not legislated it.

When there is a lack of access to affordable child care, it tends to be the woman who drops out of the workforce to look after kids. When she returns to the workforce, she tends to only have available to her part-time, precarious work. Women throughout the world, and in Canada as well, have an unfair share of unpaid labour.

Not having access to unemployment insurance, or pension contributions or benefits because they are working part-time, means that many women end up behind, financially, and the lack of affordable child care is at the root of it. My sister and her husband had to leave Toronto because their child care costs were more than their rent. This is not sustainable for young families and it is not a good investment.

Last month, the OECD was in Ottawa investigating Canada's commitment to its feminist agenda and its gender lens on policies and programs. The OECD had observed previously about Canada that affordability and quality in child care overall was still an issue “forcing many women to drop out of the labour market or reduce their working hours during childrearing years. This affects women’s earnings levels: full-time employed women in Canada earn on average 19% less than men.”

On Friday, I was at a launch of the State of the Child report, which is done every couple of years in Nanaimo. It was the greater Nanaimo early years partnership, and I really applaud its work. It hosted all government agencies at all levels of government. The report found that children in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith were living in poverty. The children were between the ages of zero and five. This has increased to 24% of the population. It is a terrible number and reflects a lack of access to government services and employment support in our community.

There is good news on the horizon. The IMF said that the Liberals could afford to spend $8 billion a year on child care and the program would pay for itself. Why did the Liberals' 2016-17 budget not allocate money for new child care spaces? Increasing the Canada tax child benefit does not help if there are no places to spend that money.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for raising the important issue of child care in Canada in this House.

Family is the most important thing in life. We want our children to be happy and to have everything they need for a good start in life.

Children are Canada's future. We need to do everything we can to help them reach their full potential.

Sadly, only one in four children in Canada has access to quality child care. For many families, the lack of affordable, high-quality child care leads to tough choices.

Some parents are forced to sacrifice their career because they cannot afford child care. Others work multiple jobs to make ends meet.

No one should have to make tough choices like these. Child care should be inclusive.

What are we doing about this? Our government recognizes that high quality child care in the early years of a child's life is crucial to social, emotional, and cognitive development.

Last year, in budget 2016, our government invested $500 million in early learning and child care, including $100 million in early learning and child care for indigenous children. That is only the beginning.

This year, in budget 2017, we are also proposing to invest another $7 billion over 10 years to support flexible, affordable, high-quality child care and create spaces across the country. We will get there.

On June 12, federal, provincial, and territorial governments agreed on the creation of a multilateral early learning and child care framework. This framework sets out a long-term vision to ensure that all children can experience an enriching environment of quality learning and early child care.

Since then, three other provinces have entered into bilateral agreements, and in the coming weeks and months, we will continue to work with our provincial and territorial partners.

A total of $1.2 billion will be allocated to address each jurisdiction's unique early learning and child care needs.

Together, we are going to develop action plans, monitor progress, and ensure that low- and middle-income families have improved access to child care.

What is more, we are in the process of developing a framework for early learning and child care with our indigenous partners, a framework that will reflect the unique cultural needs of first nations, Inuit, and Métis children across Canada.

We are working closely with the provinces and territories, stakeholders, and experts to improve data collection and the dissemination of key early learning and child care information.

We are investing $95 million to close data gaps in order to better understand what child care looks like in Canada and track progress.

We are also investing $100 million for innovation practices on early learning and child care so that we can find new ways of helping our children reach their full potential.

Together we will give every child in this country what they deserve: an equal opportunity to succeed.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here is the difficulty. The government has announced that it is lifting 300,000 kids out of poverty but will not provide the numbers, so we cannot verify that number. It has increased the Canada child benefit. That is a nice thing, especially if it is paired with creating new child care spaces. Most western countries do this, but Canada, federally, still has not. The budget in 2016 and 2017 creates no new child care spaces.

Child care advocates, such as the Canadian Child Care Federation, say that the extra money in the Canada child benefit will help families pay the bills, but with no new child care spaces, there is nowhere to spend that money on child care. It does not make child care any cheaper.

Morna Ballantyne, of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, says, “All the evidence shows that cash payments to parents will not make child care services...more accessible and will not resolve the...crisis that is putting children, families and economic growth at risk”.

What will the government do to help families and working women now with affordable child care?

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadian children are entitled to an equal opportunity to succeed, and we believe that quality early learning and child care services provide a solid foundation for their future success.

That is why the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour is working closely with the provinces and territories to offer early learning and child care systems that improve the lives of Canadian children and their families.

Three-year funding agreements with the provinces and territories have already been signed under the multilateral early learning and child care framework. By signing these agreements with the provinces and territories, we have taken historic measures to support Canadian families, with an emphasis on helping families who need child care the most.

National Defence

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, here it is, another night and again I am rising to address the issue of our fighter jet replacements here in Canada and how the Liberals have turned this whole fiasco into a circus.

I first raised the question we are dealing with tonight back on June 13. I was wondering about how the government was going to go out and sole-source 18 Super Hornets from Boeing when the government is in an argument with Boeing over the trade action it took against Bombardier.

We know it is very unlikely that the Liberal government is going to deal with Boeing now, and the minister has even called Boeing an untrusted partner.

Back in May I raised the question, and 13 former commanders of the Royal Canadian Air Force said that instead of buying Super Hornets, just a small fleet of Super Hornets, from Boeing, which may take years to actually procure, if there was a so-called capability gap that the defence minister had imagined, the best way to address that need to increase the fleet from 77 legacy CF-18 Hornets is to go out and buy legacy F-18 Hornets from other countries, such as Australia.

Back on May 29, the minister said:

Yes, there were options for buying old ones. No, we do not want to buy used equipment; we want to invest in new planes.

Lo and behold, the minister has actually gone and tasked members of the Royal Canadian Air Force and those in the government in charge of procurement to go and evaluate those used legacy Hornets, those F-18s that are down in Australia.

It is interesting to note that the Australian auditor general did a report on the legacy F-18 Hornets. Right now Australia plans to roll down those planes, and withdraw them from service in 2020, because they are buying new F-35s. If anyone is confused, the Australians had also bought 24 new Super Hornets. In 2010, Australia bought brand new Super Hornets, the F-18s, and are going to use them until 2025.

Our fighter jets, our legacy fleet of CF-18s, are only tasked to fly until 2025. Time is crunching down on us here. We are now looking at less than eight years—it is seven and a half years—to replace our entire fleet. Buying those Super Hornets is not possible.

The problem is that these legacy Hornets coming from Australia, that the auditor general has said would be retired in 2020, three years from now, have significant aged-aircraft issues, which are resulting in maintenance durations and costs becoming less predictable. All but nine of the aircraft have experienced structural fatigue above that expected for the airframe hours that have already been flown. That fatigue count is higher than that of even the legacy Hornets here in Canada and those in the U.S. navy.

Why would we want to buy these old, worn-out, stressed-out, beat-up legacy Hornets from Australia? Why does the government not get on with the fact that we need to have an open and fair competition right now to replace our CF-18s, and let everybody compete so we can get the new aircraft on time, in the best interests of our taxpayers, our aerospace industry, and the safety of our pilots?

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and for his interest in National Defence matters.

In the new defence policy released on June 7, the government reiterated its commitment to providing the Royal Canadian Air Force with the equipment it needs to conduct its operations.

The policy clearly states our intention to procure 88 next-generation fighter jets to replace the aging CF-18 fleet. We need 88 fighter jets, but we know that our air force currently does not have 88 fighter jets, which is why we need an interim fleet.

We will hold an open and transparent competition for the permanent replacement of the CF-18s.

A fleet of modern fighter jets is essential for defending Canada and North America and for contributing to international peace and stability. We agreed to acquire an interim fleet until a permanent replacement is in place to ensure that we have 88 fighter jets to help us meet our obligations.

We had serious discussions with the U.S. government for the purchase of 18 Super Hornet fighters from Boeing, as my colleague mentioned. However, our government strongly disagrees with the decision of the U.S. Department of Commerce to impose countervailing duties on Bombardier's C Series aircraft at Boeing's request.

Our government stands up for the interests of the Canadian aerospace industry and its workers.

Naturally, we have ended our relationship with Boeing, a company that has gone after our industry and wants to put thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Canadians out of work.

Our government will remain actively involved in the investigations taking place in the United States, including at the United States International Trade Commission, and we will defend the interests of Bombardier, the Canadian aerospace industry, and our aerospace workers.

I am sure my colleague opposite would agree that this is a very unfortunate situation. In the meantime, we are continuing our efforts to procure a fleet of 88 next-generation fighter jets.

We will launch an open and transparent competition for the permanent replacement for our fighter fleet during this term. The replacement fleet for the CF-18 fighter jets must be versatile, resilient, and interoperable with our allies and partners in Norad and NATO.

Preliminary consultations with potential suppliers are under way, and we hope to release the bid documentation within this term. We are not going to cut any corners in this process. We want to be sure to engage suppliers.

In the meantime, we are taking steps to ensure that Canada remains a reliable partner that our Norad and NATO allies can count on.

First, we are investing in our existing CF-18 fleet. We are going to make sure it continues to operate effectively and reliably until the new fighter fleet arrives.

Second, we are also exploring the acquisition of interim fighter aircraft to supplement our current fleet. Buying F-18s from the Royal Australian Air Force is one of the options on the table.

The actions we have taken will help us determine the best way to supplement the CF-18 fleet so that the Royal Canadian Air Force can fully meet our Norad and NATO obligations simultaneously until the new permanent fleet is fully operational.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence that experts are saying that the government is definitely on the wrong path and has been misleading Canadians on the capability gap.

As a matter of fact, there is an organization under National Defence called Defence Research and Development Canada. It is a research division of National Defence. It wrote, back in 2014, that there was no need to pursue a bridging option. It went on to say, “The costs involved with bridging options make them unsuitable for filling capability gaps in the short term. Any short term investment results in disproportionately high costs during the bridging period.”

Lieutenant-General Ken Pennie, former chief of the air staff, said back in the fall that this is a politically motivated decision and that he certainly would never recommend that.

Again, politics are completely obscuring the ability of the Royal Canadian Air Force to get the right plane at the right dollar and in the right amount of time, because we know that the current fleet of CF-18s can only fly until 2025. Going beyond that is really going to undermine the ability of Canada to be a trusted partner.

If the government was so concerned about fulfilling our obligations to NORAD, NATO, and our own national security, it would get on with an open and fair competition immediately.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's new defence policy is a forward-looking plan that includes key investments in Canadian Armed Forces equipment.

We plan to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force's CF-18s with 88 advanced fighter aircraft. The competition to permanently replace the Royal Canadian Air Force fighter fleet will be open and transparent and will happen within this term.

We will continue to explore the purchase of fighter aircraft to enable the Royal Canadian Air Force to fully meet our Norad and NATO obligations simultaneously until the new permanent fleet is fully operational.

We are determined to make sure the Canadian Armed Forces are well equipped and well trained to keep us strong and secure at home and fully engaged in the world.

Ethics

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again this evening and for the past several months, I have been asking the same question and I keep having to come back because I never get any real answers.

Obviously, we are talking about the Minister of Finance's ethics. When it comes to ethics, a number of things come to mind. For me, there are things that come to mind from way back when.

In the past, the Liberals had us used to a level of ethics that I would describe as questionable. They were on the opposition benches for 10 years and, unfortunately, they did not learn a single thing the whole time they were in the penalty box, as we say in hockey.

The Minister of Finance's mistakes keep piling up. His first mistake was to tell everyone here in the House, the media, and the people in his party that he had put his assets in a blind trust. We just found out today from the Auditor General that that was not true. The media had previously reported that as well.

When he was caught red-handed after countless questions from all the opposition parties, it was easy to see that he realized that he was caught. That is when he went to see the Ethics Commissioner. He paid a ridiculous amount for getting caught.

Members opposite are still trying to get us to believe their story, which I find deplorable. It is far less serious to admit one's mistakes than to keep saying that they did the right thing even after that turned out to be completely false.

The Auditor General told us so today. The media exposed it. The Minister of Finance paid a fine, so it would seem that his ethics remain questionable and are increasingly being called into question. I find that unfortunate because it is the first time in Canada's history that a prime minister and his finance minister are both under investigation.

What is it going to take for members of the Liberal Party to acknowledge their mistakes? Are they really waiting for those of us on this side of the House to get fed up and ask for an inquiry?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague; I hold her in high esteem and very much enjoy working with her even though we are on opposite sides of the House.

She is right when she says that the question she has asked today has been asked many times in the House. I have answered it many times during question period, so she will not be surprised if my answer is no different than the 15 other answers I gave them this afternoon.

The Minister of Finance arrived in Ottawa after leaving the private sector to serve the public, at great cost and sacrifice to his family. When the opposition makes assumptions and false allegations, it does nothing to encourage people to leave the private sector to serve the public as the minister did. Incidentally, the minister has served Canadians by achieving remarkable results for the Canadian economy. We have the best economic growth in the G7, half a million jobs have been created since we took office, and the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in 12 years. The previous government had the worst record for job creation and economic growth since the Second World War.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

That is completely untrue.

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is true. I invite the member to look at the numbers, which speak for themselves.

With regard to her question, when the Minister of Finance arrived in Ottawa, he did what is expected of all ministers, all parliamentary secretaries, and all members. He went to see an independent and impartial institution, the Ethics Commissioner. He presented his situation to her and followed her recommendations. The Ethics Commissioner has been very clear about that. She recommended that he put in place a conflict of interest screen. That measure was good enough for the member's former colleague, Denis Lebel, and for the member for Milton. The minister put that screen in place from the get-go, and it is still in place today. The Ethics Commissioner herself said that this was the best measure of compliance to ensure that the minister followed the rules that govern us here in the House, and that is what he did.

The member talked about blind trusts and the $200 fine in the same breath without explaining what really happened. What everyone needs to know is that the minister has always declared all of his assets to the Ethics Commissioner. That includes the property in France to which the member referred that led to the $200 fine. Because of an administrative error, the corporation that owned the property was not properly declared. The property itself was known to the Ethics Commissioner, along with all the rest of the minister's assets, because he did what we are all expected to do, which is work transparently with the commissioner.

It is also worth pointing out that, to avoid further distraction, the minister announced that he would place all of his assets in a blind trust and divest all of his shares in Morneau Shepell, which he did. He even said he would give any profit on those shares since the election to charities in the Toronto region. That is what the minister did and, I should point out, that is what he has been doing for years, because he and his family are leading philanthropists. That is what he did to avoid distraction and concentrate on the work he is doing for the Canadian economy and Canadians. His two-year record is much better than that of the previous government, which did a poor job of managing the economy for 10 years.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, we are talking about ethics. We are talking about the Minister of Finance's ethics. Frankly, I could not care less what the Liberals have done for the middle class because that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the Minister of Finance's ethics.

To go a bit further, let us not forget that we are no longer in power. It is the Liberals who are in power, and they are the ones who have to be squeaky clean. When they were sitting on this side of the House, they were the ones who made ministers lose their jobs over a matter of $16. We have yet to make any allegations. We have questioned the Minister of Finance many times about his ethics, but no one here has made any allegations against him whatsoever.

If the hon. member wants to get into what it means to make allegations, let us talk about it. There were allegations in the context of the Gomery commission. That is not what we are talking about, but if he wants to take this further, that is where we will take this. If the Liberals want to wait for the opposition MPs to get sick of nonsense answers and start calling for an inquiry, I will be the first to call for one.

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, whom I hold in great esteem, I did not even talk about the middle class in my previous four-minute answer. I talked about the Minister of Finance's economic record and about the Ethics Commissioner, who is tasked with protecting the integrity of Parliament. We respect this wholly impartial and independent institution.

The Minister of Finance has been working with the Ethics Commissioner since he first came to Ottawa, and he will continue to do so as long as he is a member of Parliament, just like all other members. Determinations are to be made by the commissioner, not by the opposition or government. It is up to the commissioner to make sure every member follows the best course and meets the highest standards of integrity.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8:17 p.m.)