Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2017

Opposition Motion—Finance Minister's assets

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I thank the member for that point. I do want to remind the members of the opposition as well to keep it down, because there was quite a bit of heckling going on a while ago.

I want to advise the member that, actually, the member for Newmarket—Aurora did bring it around. He still has about four and a half minutes in his speech. I would just remind members that if they are anxious to ask questions or make comments, they can hold on for a few more minutes.

The hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your sound judgment. I do appreciate it.

It is no surprise that Tories want me to keep quiet. I take that as a badge of honour, and thank them very much. When Canadians speak about how good the economy is, the Tories want to distract them. When Canadians speak about the growth and the economic prosperity we have in the country, the Tories want to change the channel. Why is that?

It is because we can compare these two years to the 10 before, where growth was middling, unemployment was high, and confidence was low. It was a decade of darkness in the Canadian economy. In these two years, my friends will realize, going back to the analogy, the sunshine has come into the Canadian economy and shown to all that we can prosper in the new economy. Canadians are innovating and will continue to innovate in the new economy. The Canadian economy leads the world right now, and the more light shone on that fact, the better for all, I say.

This is why my Conservative friends across the floor dread the fact that I have four more minutes to speak. I speak the truth. I reveal the prosperity, so all Canadians can see it. I clearly underlined the contrast between two years of Liberal rule and 10 years of Conservative rule. My friends across the floor do not want the Speaker to remember those 10 years. They do not want the Speaker to remember any of their problems. They do not want that. It is not just the Speaker, but it is all of us and all Canadians.

When they ask if we agree that we should shine the light, I say we should shine the light, we should shine it bright, and we should shine it on the 10 years' record. The only result that will come is that it will not be a disinfectant, but it will reveal failed policies. It will reveal the lost decade of Canada. This is what we are talking about. This is not only relevant to the motion; this is relevant to every Canadian's daily life.

The government and the Minister of Finance are committed to serving the interests of all Canadians. Make no mistake about that. Any inference to the contrary, in my humble assessment, is a misguided one. Do not take my word for it. Let us look at the stock markets for another example. There are record highs in the Toronto Stock Exchange. Investors agree with the policies of this finance minister.

We are well poised. We are positioned for growth. Canada is once again leading the world on so many issues, and above all, which I am proud to say, there is no country ahead of Canada in economic growth. Canada is second to none, and we will continue to be so. That is why this motion is so unnecessary, so superfluous and irrelevant. Clearly, a finance minister who oversees this growth and who makes sure the Canadian economy is robust and continues to be so, clearly, has only the interests of Canadians at heart. That is the essence of the motion.

I do not think it will surprise my friends when I say I am going to happily vote against this motion, and proudly. A vote for this motion, in my opinion, is a vote against the Canadian economy, and I will never vote against the Canadian economy, nor will any of my colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, this topic is relevant and it is timely. The reason is that there is an obvious blind spot with the current government and particularly with the finance minister. Even The Globe and Mail agreed. However, little did I know that the problem does not just come from the Prime Minister to the finance minister. It seems to have invaded the whole caucus because this member here has a blind spot when it comes to judging whether the minister is owning up to the responsibilities he is obligated to, and not only under the Conflict of Interest Act but also the Prime Minister's own ministerial guidelines that say the ethical bar should be quite high.

Therefore, I go back to it. Would the member agree with most Canadian mothers and fathers who say to their children every day, “work hard but make sure in all things you do that you are honest and treat people with respect”? When will the current government treat Canadians with respect by having its minister come clean with the conduct of his own office?

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's attentiveness during what must have seemed a rather long speech to that side of the House.

I am a father myself, and what I say to my children is the same as any parents say to their children, of course, “work hard and you will get ahead; be true to yourself; be kind to one another”. These are the types of lessons our children need to learn, and in Canada every child will have the opportunity to succeed. Every child, regardless of where in the country or outside of the country he or she is born, regardless of what the parents do for a living, and regardless of what region a child grows up in, will have that same fair and real chance at success. Our government is committed to that as the overarching goal. Therefore, I am very proud to tell my children that our finance minister has their best interest at heart as he helps to create an economy where they will have a strong and robust future and every chance at success that every Canadian kid deserves.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member made mention of children. There are several of us in this chamber who are parents. Our children often try to lay the blame for something they have done on their siblings, which we have seen the government doing. They often try to change the topic when the topic gets too uncomfortable for them to speak about.

That aside, the member for Newmarket—Aurora talked about a lot of sunlight in his speech, and I am glad he agrees with us that sunlight is the best disinfectant. I made reference in my earlier speech to the Liberals' sunny ways and how it is a reference to Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his reference to Aesop's fable. The sun and the wind had a competition to see who was best able to remove a traveller's cloak and the sun's warm rays proved better than the wind's bluster. I wonder if the hon. member will join us in the opposition to use sunshine as the best disinfectant and to use those sunny ways to remove the finance minister's coat of silence to expose the truth.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's interest in Aesop's fable. Of course, that is the source of the sunny ways.

Sunny ways are of course to be lauded. Sunny ways are something we should always strive for. Every now and then when it is too hot in the sun, sometimes a little bluster is good to cool us off. I sensed the House getting a little hot and I was happy to try to cool it down a bit. I was happy to make that contribution to the well-being and the comfort of my hon. colleagues in this House.

However, there is no cloak that needs to be removed from the finance minister. Everything has been revealed to the Ethics Commissioner. That is the regime we have in Canada. The minister is following the guidance of the Ethics Commissioner and will continue to do so.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could just expand on his last answer. We see opposition parties working together to focus on the Minister of Finance. I would argue that as they want to focus on the Minister of Finance, this government continues to focus on Canadians, in wanting to ensure that Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it continue to advance under good leadership that is coming from the Minister of Finance on a litany of issues. I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on some of those positive things that this Minister of Finance has done such as the tax break for our middle class, the Canada child benefit, and the guaranteed income supplement increase, literally lifting thousands of children and seniors out of poverty.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, of course, the finance minister and the government on the whole have done a lot. They continue to pursue policies that help the middle class and those working hard to join it. The CCB is a good example. The guaranteed income supplement is another good example, as well as the middle-class tax cut. Now, the WITB is going to help those who need it most. Also, there is the small business tax cut that is proposed to happen in 2018-19. All of these policies are meant to ensure that our economy continues to grow and Canadians continue to have the opportunities that they so richly deserve.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Newmarket—Aurora has been very entertaining for the last 20 minutes. I know the strategy of the Liberal caucus is to fill time, and he did an admirable job of filling time.

Last week we had a break, and I happened to read in the paper where all of the members on the Liberal benches had been instructed by the PMO to go out and listen to their constituents that week. We did the same thing. We did not have to be instructed. We just do that automatically. I want to ask the member, when he was talking to his constituents last week, what were they telling him about the minister and his unethical behaviour? I can say what our constituents are telling us. If he is going to tell us something different, then I am going to suggest he is not doing a very good job of listening to his constituents.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. Before I go to the member for Newmarket—Aurora, I am still hearing a lot of heckling on both sides of the House, so I want to remind members, if they have questions and comments they can actually stand up and try to be recognized.

The hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, and I thank my colleague for it. I also want to take this opportunity to let him know that the Argos are probably going to beat the Stampeders at Sunday's Grey Cup. That could be a different issue once again.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Put some sunshine on it.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

That would be illegal.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Obviously, people are looking forward to the weekend. I would just remind members that we are still doing questions and comments.

I would ask the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora to get on topic.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will certainly bring it back around to comments. The question was what were we doing in our constituency week. I spoke to a lot of my constituents, as every member in the House did. I heard a lot of things. Most of them were: “Keep up the good work”, “Keep working hard”, and “Don't let the distractions keep you away from the job at hand”. Those were the types of things I was hearing.

Also, I created a Canada 150 medal for volunteers, and I took the opportunity during break week to give 150 volunteers in the wonderful riding of Newmarket—Aurora a medal to thank them for making their community better and the country better. That is what I did on my break week. I came back feeling refreshed, positive, and ready to roll in the House as we get toward the Christmas break, like all my colleagues. I hope he had as successful a constituency week as I did.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise on behalf of my constituents.

The way this place works oftentimes is that the Canadian public decides who is going to be in government and who is going to be in opposition and they do so because they want to provide contrast. Today, Her Majesty's loyal opposition I am proud to report will be offering some contrast to the bromides we have heard from the government.

When I was first elected to this place one of the very first things I did was to read the member's handbook. We all know that is a lengthy read. One of the first things it impressed upon me was the great number of rules that have accumulated over the years. Some are extremely specific and others are quite obscure. With others, we question if it really needs to be said. We all know why we have such a variety of rules. Over time, someone invariably did something that he or she should not have done, and that individual was caught. Typically, when that situation occurs the excuse is that there is nothing specific in the rules which says it could not be done so therefore nothing wrong was done. Does that sound familiar? Let us look at this case.

We do not have a rule that specifically says a minister must place his or her assets into a blind trust. We do have a rule that says that a minister may not hold publicly traded securities directly and if those securities are not sold, they must be held in a blind trust. We know about this loophole and I imagine others will explore the loophole as the government has said no to closing said loophole. When we have a situation where the rules are not explicitly clear, one could say I am following the rules.

According to our rules, I have to ask permission to share time with the MP for Edmonton West. I hope that will be accommodated.

We know that the finance minister told his former firm that he expected he would put his assets into a blind trust. This has been said publicly. Why do we think the minister said that to his former firm? I would submit to this place that the minister is an intelligent man and he knew full well that placing his assets into a blind trust was the correct thing to do, which is why at that time he made that comment.

Despite having made the comment and clearly knowing the importance of blind trusts to our system of ensuring that those who lead the country do not personally profit from activities of their own office, the minister ultimately refused to do so. I will leave it up to this place to speculate on the reasons why.

Unfortunately, things only get worse from here.

We also know that at the same time, the finance minister continued to knowingly hold shares indirectly in a company that would significantly benefit from Bill C-27. At no time did the minister recuse himself from that legislation and that is deeply troubling.

Lest we not forget, we only learned of these details as they slowly leaked out. At first the minister claimed he was not in any conflict. Then, under pressure, the minister finally sold all of the shares that he accumulated, dividends most likely that he profited from. Then in question period this week, he told us that he is no longer in a conflict position because he has sold the shares in question. The problem with that is if not owning the shares means he is not in conflict, what did it mean when the Minister of Finance did own the shares? Once again I will leave it up to this place to contemplate that.

More troubling is that when the Prime Minister was asked when he first learned that his finance minister had not placed his assets into a blind trust, as many believe he had, the Prime Minister refused to answer this question.

One thing we have learned about this particular Prime Minister is that the only time we get a clear answer is when the answer is not politically damaging. Let us not forget the Prime Minister tells this place very little about his own ethics investigation.

Now we have this problem. Canadians thought they had a finance minister who had placed his assets into a blind trust and by extension when he failed to do this, he introduced a bill that caused those shares to increase in value.

Yes, he may well have since sold those shares, after the fact I might add, and donated those profits away, but that does not change the fact that this was all after the fact, once someone else leaked that information. When we learned that the finance minister did not recuse himself from Bill C-27 and that there was no ethics screen, I asked this question: What would happen had no one leaked that these shares were not in a blind trust? I will leave it to those in this place to contemplate that.

However, one thing that is clear is this. When all of these things occurred on the part of the finance minister, it created a serious credibility problem. Of course, that is why we are here today, because we know that the finance minister has other numbered companies. What we do not know is what assets are in those companies. If the finance minister truly has nothing to hide, then surely he would just disclose those assets. The finance minister is an intelligent person and would know this. However, despite knowing this, he continues to refuse to provide the necessary transparency, and he now has the gall to question this as somehow being an attack on his character.

I can assure the finance minister and this place that there is no such thing. Instead, it is an opportunity for transparency to help restore badly needed confidence. After all, why do we have conflict of interest guidelines? Why do we have a Conflict of Interest Act? It is to ensure that public office holders, and in particular ministers of the crown, do not personally profit from the decisions they make that are meant to be for the public benefit. It is a matter of trust. This is not a new thing. Why were blind trusts first created? Why did the Prime Minister publicly disclose he was using a blind trust? Why are other members of the cabinet using blind trusts? Why have previous ministers of the crown used blind trusts? We all know the answer to these questions. I do not have to leave it up to this place to contemplate that. It is all about transparency and how ministers of the crown honourably conduct themselves.

Before I close, I would like to leave members with this one question. There is no doubt that they will hear many times throughout the discussion today that the Prime Minister, as we all know, came into this place and said, “sunshine is the best disinfectant.” Why do we think the Prime Minister said that? Did he say it because it was politically convenient to do so at the time? Did he say it because the principle should only apply to everyone else but a Liberal finance minister, or because it happens to be true? At the end of this debate, when we vote on this motion, the Prime Minister will have an opportunity to show his commitment to his own words of wisdom, as will all members of this place. Will we vote for transparency or will some choose to vote for the continued cloak of darkness and secrecy?

I look forward to hearing the good questions that members have for me today.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be voting in support of confidence in the commissioner. The commissioner's office is independent. We find the opposition parties constantly going after the Minister of Finance on a wide range of issues. They have consistently done that. What we have witnessed is a character assassination of the Minister of Finance. Just like every one of us has an obligation to report to the commissioner all of our assets, the Minister of Finance has done likewise. As the members of the opposition try to change the channel, we are focused on what is in the best interests of Canadians. If they want to focus on the Minister of Finance, that is fine.

I will be voting in support of the Ethics Commissioner, Mary Dawson, and voting against this motion.

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

Madam Speaker, in this country we have a great system of responsible government. That means that all of us in this place are a determining factor in whether there is confidence in the government, its actions and policies, including the personal conduct of individual ministers. The Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner aims to help encourage and build trust so that Canadians know there is disclosure, but it does not supplant the absolute imperative for us, as members of Parliament, to hold individual government ministers and the Liberal government itself to account. I would simply ask that the Liberals continue to maintain responsible government and not a delegated government to an office such as the Ethic Commissioner.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about something that a number of members have discussed today, and that is the possible inability of the finance minister to recognize his ethical responsibilities; ergo, his conflict situation. We know he was born into wealth, married into great wealth, and has lived in a rarified atmosphere that the vast majority of Canadians cannot relate to. One of the specialties of the firm that bears the family name is offshore tax avoidance. One of the family yachts does not fly the Canadian flag, but flies the flag of the Marshall Islands.

I ask my colleague whether he thinks the finance minister perhaps believes he is above all of the rules and regulations that we and other Canadians have to follow, the exception, of course, being the Prime Minister.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It being two o'clock, I am going to ask the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola to hold that thought, as it is now time for statements by members.

Interests of Quebec

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this has been a busy week in Ottawa. The federal government has found a way to disregard the clear will of Quebeckers four times this week, and it is only Thursday.

It said no to the unanimous request by the Quebec National Assembly to reverse the federal decision and prohibit small knives on planes; it said no to the National Assembly's unanimous request to delay the legalization of cannabis for one year; it said no to the National Assembly's unanimous request to award Davie our fair share of the shipbuilding contracts and support our 600 workers who could lose their jobs next week; and it said no to Quebec's request for the transfer of its share of the affordable housing fund. The government prefers to play petty politics at the expense of less fortunate families.

That is what happened in just four days of Canadian federalism. Anyone can understand why we prefer to keep our tax money in Quebec.

Municipal Councillor

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize an outstanding municipal councillor in my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets.

Lee Nauss just celebrated his 50th year as a municipal councillor in the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg. First elected in 1967, Lee has won 16 consecutive elections since then. He is the longest-serving politician in Nova Scotia, and certainly one of the longest serving municipal politicians in Canada. Lee has been a driving force behind many initiatives in our area, including the solid waste facility; a new hospital, the new Riverview Enhanced Living care facility; new schools; and a new lifestyle centre.

As every member of this House knows, public life does not just affect those elected to office, but also their families. To Lee's wife, Margaret, and his family, I thank them for sharing him with his community. I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Lee, and wishing him all the best for the next 50 years.

Firefighting

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this past Tuesday, debate on my private member's bill, Bill C-365, began. I thank all members who contributed to the debate. Bill C-365 proposes support for Canadian firefighters who stand ready to answer the call of duty 365 days a year.

Firefighters depend on their equipment to do their job, and Bill C-365 seeks to provide specific denunciations and deterrence of mischief or theft related to firefighting equipment. Momentum for Bill C-365 is building, with broad support received from firefighters, fire chiefs, fire prevention officers, their national associations, and the public. I am truly grateful for this support.

We all have an opportunity to support this initiative. I invite all Canadians to support our firefighters and this bill by signing online e-petition 1373 on the House of Commons website.