Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2017

Opposition Motion—Finance Minister's assets

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think one of the reasons we are here today is that when Canadians hear the finance minister and the Prime Minister continually saying things that do not line up with the facts, they lose credibility. When the finance minister says that he has fully disclosed his assets, but the Ethics Commissioner has charged him $200 for not disclosing his assets, it is clear there is a problem. When the Prime Minister says that there is no issue with Stephen Bronfman, but we see it on the front page today, Canadians lose confidence. I think this is why they want to know what is in all of these other companies, because there is no credibility. Therefore, we cannot just take the finance minister's word for it. Would my colleague agree?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague. I refer to her that way because I know she has met all the requirements, not just of the law but the expectations of the residents of her riding.

I have a problem with these speeches of justification. All day we will hear members on that side say that the economy is doing great, that they have great social programs, that we should look at what they have done. They are looking anywhere but at the personal finances of the minister. They do not want us to look there because there may be problems, and the Liberals are not sure what to do. They are not sure because none of them know what potential conflicts of interest lurk in any corporations. All they have to go on is the word of the minister.

The Ethics Commissioner has already fined the finance minister for a failure to disclose, but it took two years to get to this point. That is where I have a problem. This behaviour cannot be justified. We need to see what is in those private corporations.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. As a federal MP I like to remind the people of Longueuil—Saint-Hubert that we were elected here to talk about and address important matters.

I want to know whether the hon. member thinks it is sad to see that because of the government's patent lack of transparency we are forced to spend almost an entire day on a point of order. It is a day-long point of order.

Does he not find it sad that it has come to this?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubertfor his good question.

I certainly agree with him that this should be a point of order, because it is one.

We are forced to come to the House and move a motion to debate the matter. We are only now debating this because it took two years for us to learn the truth, for the Ethics Commissioner to tell us that under section 62 of the Conflict of Interest Act:

If an administrative monetary penalty is imposed on a public office holder in respect of a violation, the Commissioner shall make public the nature of the violation, the name of the public office holder who committed it and the amount of the penalty imposed.

She then described the nature of the violation for our benefit here in the House. Of course, the Ethics Commissioner cannot replace us. She cannot replace any members of Parliament. All she can do is provide her opinion and advice on the legislation and what it says. We are here in the House discussing a motion that simply asks the Minister of Finance to disclose all his assets within his companies.

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

Madam Speaker, could the member across the way give some sort of a clear indication as to whether he has confidence in the commissioner's office?

The commissioner has an obligation to review not only the Minister of Finance but all members. All members are obligated to report, and the commissioner has been charged with the responsibility, as opposed to a very partisan opposition party, at times, that creates its own parameters and wants to focus on something totally different than what Canadians want the government to focus on.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is making justifications again, dodging, and evading the issue. That is what the government does all the time. It blames the Ethics Commissioner, that it is all her fault. She figured out that the Minister of Finance was not telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The $200 fine, and the nature of the violation, speaks for itself.

We have delegated a certain amount of authority to the Ethics Commissioner. If the government does not trust her, it can replace her at any time. It has not done so because she is still investigating the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance on separate infringements of the rules, a first for a Canadian government.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address the opposition motion. I am happy to assure the House that through smart investments and an overarching commitment to fairness, our government will ensure that Canada's best days lie ahead.

I would like to focus on the state of Canada's economy and our recent measures in the government's fall economic statement, which is a continuation of the government's plan. The foundation for plan was laid out in our two budgets and was built on during last month's fall economic statement.

The government's plan to invest in Canadians and our communities is based on the belief that when we have an economy that works for the middle class, we have a country that works for everyone. I think it is fair to say that there are many clear signs that the government's plan is working.

Right now, the Canadian economy is the fastest growing in the G7, with an average growth of 3.7%—

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to remind my colleague that we are not talking about the budget implementation act. We are not talking about the budget. We are here today to discuss a very clearly defined motion by the opposition. I would ask you, Madam Speaker, to ensure the member addresses the motion in his comments.

Earlier today, the same kinds of games were being played by other members when they went on and on to talk about the government's accomplishments, but today we are talking about the ethics, or lack thereof, of the finance minister.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member that the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga is absolutely correct in that the speech has to be relative to the opposition motion. If he could bring his speech around to the motion, that would be greatly appreciated. There is some latitude, however, it has to be related to the motion itself.

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

Madam Speaker, with respect, the way my hon. colleague characterized the motion is inaccurate. I will read the last line of the motion, which has nothing to do with ethics.

The last line states that the finance minister “determine if his financial interests have conflicted with his public duties.” That part of the motion draws into complete question whether his private interests conflict with his public duties. I am relating to the House, all my colleagues, and all Canadians that he has put his public duties first. His financial interests have nothing to do with the fall economic statement and, in fact, by laying out the success our economy is seeing, any Canadian or objective bystander would come to the conclusion that the finance minister's public duties always come first. That is the very essence of the motion.

To say my comments are irrelevant, my friend is misguided and, in fact, not based on the words of the motion. With respect to the hon. member, I appreciate him interrupting my speech, but to grandstand and bring the House's attention away from the success the Canadian government is having, away from the success that Canadians—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order, please. I want to remind members of the opposition that while the member is speaking, we need to afford him the respect he deserves. There will be a chance for questions and comments. I understand we are getting close to the end of the week, however, the member has brought his speech around, and I would ask him to continue.

The hon. member for Kyle Peterson (Newmarket—Aurora).

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

Madam Speaker, right now, the Canadian economy is the fastest growing in the G7, with average growth of 3.7% after the last four quarters. This is due, in large part, to increased consumer confidence, a direct result of programs like the Canada child benefit, which puts more money in the pockets of moms and dads, so they can pay off debt, buy hockey equipment or healthier food for their children and families.

Everywhere we look, there are signs of progress for the middle class. Over 500,000 jobs have been created since 2015 and the unemployment rate is nearly the lowest it has been in a decade. Canadian economic growth has accelerated sharply since the second half of 2016. Over the last four quarters, the Canadian economy has had its fastest rate of growth in more than 10 years, and growth is forecast to be 3.1% in 2017, significantly above expectations at the beginning of this year.

These gains, coupled with a better-than-expected fiscal outcome in 2016-17, have resulted in a real positive improvement to our budget outlook. In fact, Canada's fiscal outlook has improved by over $6.5 billion annually, on average, compared to what we were expecting in March. The federal debt-to-GDP ratio has been firmly placed on a downward track, with Canada's net debt-to-GDP ratio projected to remain the lowest in the G7. Our government and the finance minister are committed to preserving Canada's low-debt advantage for current and future generations.

The actions the government has taken are having a real positive impact on our economy and for Canadians.

I would now like to go into more detail about how the government's recent fall economic statement proposes to keep us on this positive track.

Canada's fast-growing economy is giving our government the ability to reinvest the benefits of growth back into the people have who contributed most to that success. This is why we are strengthening the Canada child benefit, to ensure it continues to play a vital role in supporting families for years to come. The CCB will be strengthened by making annual cost of living increases starting in July 2018, two years—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Another point of order from the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, again, I am questioning the relevance of this debate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Again, I must remind the member that he has wavered from the actual motion, which in part states, “to determine if his financial interests have conflicted with his public duties.” He can look at the whole motion. If he would like, I can send a copy of the motion over to him. However, I remind the member that there is some latitude, but it has to be brought back to the main motion.

The hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora.

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

Madam Speaker, the relevance of my speech and the reason it is important that I lay out the great fiscal success Canada is experiencing is that a finance minister clearly—

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Well, she has just ruled, so the member might want to pay attention to that.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Respect the ruling, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. If people want to speak and are not in agreement, they can either wait for questions and comments or get up on points of order.

I want to remind the member that the wording of the motion is as follows:

That the House agree with the Prime Minister’s statement in the House on November 1, 2017, that “sunshine is the best disinfectant”; and call on the Finance Minister to reveal all assets he has bought, sold or held within all his private companies or trust funds since he became Finance Minister, to determine if his financial interests have conflicted with his public duties.

That is the motion, and I trust that the member will come back around to it.

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

Madam Speaker, the motion says whether “his financial interests have conflicted with his public duties.” The finance minister who has overseen the greatest growth the country has seen in a decade is clearly achieving his public duties. Yes, sunshine is the best disinfectant. We agree with that statement; sunshine is the best disinfectant, and that is part of the motion.

I do not know if my hon. friends want to cherry-pick parts of the motion. Perhaps they should be a little more clever on how they word their motions if they do not want to open them up to comments that they do not necessarily agree with, but my comments—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that the motion is what it is, and the member has to redirect his speech according to the motion. I remind the member that when the Speaker enforces a rule, he or she can call the member to order, and if necessary, warn the member of the risk of being directed to discontinue a speech. I remind the member that he is to bring it back to the motion that is before the House.

The hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora.

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

Madam Speaker, I am having trouble seeing how it is not related to the motion, but I will try to make it more clear for all members to be able to clearly see that this is related.

Part of the motion says that “sunshine is the best disinfectant”. We on this side agree with that. Sunshine is like daylight, shining a light on things that exist. I am using daylight to shine a light on the success of the Canadian economy seen under the leadership of this government and under the policies of the finance minister. That is why things like the success of the CCB and the growth in the economy show and shed light on a successful economy. It throws light on a finance minister who clearly has the public interest at the heart of all the decisions he makes.

How else would there be 500,000 jobs created, if the finance minister were not interested in his public duties? How else would Canada lead the G7 in growth, at 3.7%? How else could Canadian families be so confident in the economy, if the finance minister were not doing his public duties properly? He is, in fact. There is no interest that conflicts with these public duties.

This is why it is so clearly related to the motion. The success, the growth, the job creation, and the more money in the pockets of all Canadians show that the finance minister was only performing his duties in the interests of Canadians. That is why it is important that we continue to shed sunlight on the success of the Canadian economy.

It is clear that the opposition motion is meant to draw the false conclusion that the finance minister is not interested in performing his duties as finance minister, is not interested in performing successfully his duty as finance minister, is not interested in making sure every Canadian has a fair and real chance at success. The truth, the reality, is quite the opposite.

We do not need to look any further than our own neighbourhoods to see Canadians confident, to see that Canadians who were struggling to make ends meet now have a better chance of doing so.

For instance, the WITB, the income tax benefit that was announced in the fall economic statement, is another fine example of a finance minister who cares about his public duties. How else can we explain a finance minister coming up with a policy that will help those who are the most vulnerable in our society, those who are having trouble making ends meet? These people will now have the ability to make ends meet. Many of these people are working two or three part-time jobs. This will help them, and I think all my colleagues agree that these are the people who need help the most.

The motion before us talks about sunlight being the best disinfectant. We can all agree on that, and I appreciate the applause because it is the best disinfectant. In any type of light, whether it be sunshine or the bright lights of the House, it is clear when one looks and sees what is revealed that it is an economy working for all Canadians. It is a finance minister working for all Canadians. It is a government that at the heart of all its policies wants every Canadian to have a real and fair chance at success.

No opposition day motion is going to change that reality. No opposition day motion would change the fact that Canada and the economy are booming. Canadians are confident. Canadians are ready to innovate. Canadians are innovating. Small and medium-sized businesses will be getting a tax cut down to nine per cent by January 1, 2019.

Any amount of sunshine shone on that policy will reveal how important it is that our small and medium-sized enterprises can continue to create jobs, can continue to invest in their workers, can continue to invest in Canadians, and can continue to help grow the Canadian economy.

That is exactly what we are talking about today. In whose interests is the finance minister working? It is clear, by any measure, that the only interests he is working for are the interests of Canadians. That is why looking at the Canadian economy is so important and so relevant to this motion. In fact, it is the only way we can ever decide how to vote on this motion, if we look at it in the total context, the economic context—

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was so hopeful that the member's speech was finished. I thought he was out of time. Seeing that there is still so much time, I would ask you to please enforce your ruling that the member is not talking about the topic at hand and that he needs to come back to the topic at hand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, 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.