Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2017

Opposition Motion—Finance Minister's assets

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Eventually.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

It was not eventually.

That is just it, Madam Speaker—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that they are not to be going back and forth. The speech and the questions and comments are to go through the Speaker so that there is no debate back and forth on this.

I know we are getting to the end of the work week and I think we can all get through this, so I want to bring it back to the parliamentary secretary. There will be 10 minutes of questions and comments afterward; so if members hold onto their britches, they will get there.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will give leave to have more questions. I am more than happy to answer them.

It is in the members' speaking notes to give false information, even the member across the way who just finished heckling. That is the reality. They have no qualms doing it. They will say that no one knew about it. I have news about that house in France. Not only did the commissioner know about it, it was actually reported in a newspaper a week after the last federal election. There was no hiding when it was published in one of Canada's newspapers. Maybe they can revisit that factoid when they make their presentations today.

What needs to be emphasized is that each and every member of Parliament has an obligation to go before the commissioner and declare his or her assets, and that is exactly what the Minister of Finance has done. I would suggest that Canadians, as opposed to listening to the opposition benches and the grossly exaggerated claims at times, allow the independent office to do its job. It was good enough for Stephen Harper. These are the very same rules there were under the former prime minister. We did not see any Conservatives back then jumping up and saying to change the rules.

The reason they are talking about it today is that they are trying to change the focus from what is happening today in the real world. We have a joint opposition continuously going after the Minister of Finance. Their focus is the Minister of Finance. That is fine. They can continue focusing on the Minister of Finance. This Prime Minister and this government are going to be focused on Canadians and the constituents we represent, even those we do not represent, because we appreciate what is important to Canadians. It is critically important that we look at ways we can improve the quality of life. We often talk about Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it, because this government genuinely believes in Canada's middle class and has many initiatives that have been led by the Minister of Finance.

It is character assassination that has taken place against the Minister of Finance. Some of the members shake their heads and say that is not the case. When we hear individuals across the way trying to imply that the Minister of Finance became a member of Parliament because he wanted to enhance his financial fortunes, that is absolute rubbish. I am disappointed in any member in this House who tries to impute motives to other members who come to this House wanting to improve the society and the communities in which we live. The Minister of Finance is no different. The Minister of Finance is very passionate in wanting to invoke changes for the betterment of Canadians. Each and every one of us should know better than to make allegations.

We just had a speaker who talked about duty and honour. I suggest that we have a Minister of Finance who is committed to that duty and honour. I would challenge any member across the way to inform me as to when any other minister of finance has been so successful in the redistribution of Canada's wealth and in trying to make a difference to income inequality.

One of the first initiatives this government undertook, headed by the Minister of Finance, was when we decided that there was going to be a tax increase for the one per cent of Canada's wealthiest. What did the joint opposition do? New Democrats and Conservatives were more than happy to be critical of the Minister of Finance. They even voted against that special tax on Canada's wealthiest.

Another initiative, which I believe was under Bill C-2 and incorporated into the budget, was the tax break for Canada's middle class to put hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of Canada's middle class. Once again, we saw the NDP working with the Conservatives in opposing it. People should read some of the speeches by the members across the way criticizing the Minister of Finance or that policy, just like they are being critical in the motion we have today. They actually voted against that initiative.

Imagine the hundreds of millions of dollars that went into taxpayers' pockets. The NDP was very critical of the Minister of Finance back then and asking about the working poor or those individuals who needed more. What did the Liberal government do then? We brought in, as a government, the increase to the Canada child benefit program. We changed it so that millionaires would no longer be receiving that particular benefit. Hundreds of millions of dollars were being put into a program and literally lifting thousands of children out of poverty. What did the NDP do? It did the same thing the Conservatives did and voted against that initiative.

It does not seem to matter what the Minister of Finance is doing; they are critical of the Minister of Finance. That is what they are doing again today. In fact, I think this is the second day we have had a motion of this nature.

One of the initiatives the Minister of Finance brought in that I was exceptionally proud of, Winnipeg North as well as other constituencies across our country—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the hon. member for the past five minutes give this House a history lesson on what the government has achieved in the last two years, but I do not hear him staying relevant to the subject of the motion today.

I would ask you, in your capacity, Madam Chair, to keep the hon. member on track with the subject of the motion today and ask when he might come back to the subject at hand. We do not need a history lesson. We need debate on the motion before this House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

On the same point of order, the hon.parliamentary secretary to government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, yes, on the same point of order. This is not the first time. When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance was speaking, we had at least two interruptions. Members opposite might not like what they are hearing, but it is not for them to determine whether it is in order.

If we take a look at everything I have said, I have been focusing my attention on the issue of the character assassination, by the joint opposition, of this Minister of Finance. I am clearly establishing that it is nothing new. I am pointing out specific examples of when this joint opposition has gone after the Minister of Finance and why we need to reinforce these points. It is absolutely relevant.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the members, first of all, that there is some latitude when debate is happening. However, I also want to maybe remind the member of what the actual motion says and ask if he could bring it back from time to time to that relevance as he makes his speech. The motion reads 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.

I know that during his speech, he was on message. If the member could bring it back to the motion, that would be great.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has five and a half minutes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is much like when I posed a question to the member for Brandon—Souris. I asked him about the Stephen Harper government operating under the very same rules, and the member for Brandon—Souris referenced Stephen Harper's budget surplus, and so forth. I can easily see the relevance in that, and I did not stand on a point of order, because one needs to take those things into consideration.

What we are really talking about is the Minister of Finance. Members from both political parties have attacked the Minister of Finance. There is absolutely nothing wrong. Members across the way might not like what I am saying, but everything I am saying is the absolute reality of what is taking place in this House of Commons and has been taking place over the last two years.

Before the interruption, I was talking about an issue that is really important to many seniors in my constituency, an initiative the Minister of Finance brought to the House, which was the guaranteed income supplement. Through the increase to that supplement, literally thousands of seniors, hundreds in my own constituency of Winnipeg North, were lifted out of poverty. Again, like today, we saw the NDP and the Conservatives work together to be critical and to ultimately vote against that initiative. The list goes on.

When we get to the crux of the issue, the matter the opposition is focusing its attention on is that it believes there is a conflict, yet like each and every one of us in the chamber, the Minister of Finance did, in fact, report all of his assets to the commissioner.

We often hear about the house the Minister of Finance has overseas. The Conservatives have no problem saying that it was not declared, when, in fact, not only was the commissioner aware of it, but there was a published article on the issue. How can the Conservatives say, when there was a published article on the issue and the commissioner knew about it, that the Minister of Finance did not declare the asset, when that is just not true? The Conservatives have no problem misrepresenting that issue.

There have been opportunities for us to demonstrate, and there needs to be a demonstration, I would argue, that we have confidence in Mary Dawson and the role she plays. It would be equally false to give the impression to Canadians following this debate that it is only Liberal MPs who have to abide by what the commissioner says. I suspect that there are members of all political parties in the chamber who might be under investigation. The commissioner looks into matters when matters are brought to her attention. We know that the commissioner has a responsibility for secrecy. She might not necessarily fulfill the political agenda of the Conservative-NDP alliance. I can appreciate that, but at some point, the commissioner will provide a report.

I want to emphasize the importance of respecting the independence of that office, because while the opposition is focused on the Minister of Finance, the Government of Canada is focused on Canadians.

The Liberal caucus has confidence in the commissioner to continue doing the job she has been doing not only in the last two years, but for the 10 years of the Stephen Harper government, with the very same rules we are following today.

Time inside this beautiful chamber is limited, and Madam Speaker, you are telling me I have run out of time, so I would be more than happy to answer any questions members across the way might have.

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

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has stated that the opposition is making untrue statements by saying the finance minister did not fully disclose his assets. However, I understand the Ethics Commissioner charged him $200 for not fully disclosing his assets. Could he please explain?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good example. The Minister of Finance has very clearly indicated that he has fully disclosed his assets. That was in fact done on day one. The Conservatives try to give the impression that no one knew about the house he had overseas, when in fact it was reported in a newspaper in Canada weeks after the last federal election. They are trying to give a false impression.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to address some of the comments the member made in his speech. First, I find it very interesting being lumped into an alliance with the Conservatives. The parliamentary secretary may have just inadvertently released the Liberal campaign platform for 2019, “Help us stave off the evil NDP-Conservative alliance”.

That aside, in a previous speech, my hon. colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay made mention of the smell test. It goes like this. If we were to approach members of the public on the sidewalk and explain the situation and ask “Am I in a conflict of interest?” they can give us a reliable answer, since the public is usually pretty good at perceiving what is a conflict of interest. I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on this. The finance minister owns shares in a company that he has incredible power of regulation over. He owned those shares when he introduced a bill that is going to significantly amend pension regimes for federally regulated employees. It is a scheme that Morneau Shepell could then bid on for contracts, and if they were to increase in stock price, the Minister of Finance would have benefited from that. I think if we ask any Canadian, that would not pass the smell test.

This is not a personal attack on the finance minister. It is about the office he holds, and to put him on the same plane as a member of the opposition is completely false and misleading. Therefore, I want to know, will he just allow the finance minister to continue his job, to have the finance minister disclose his assets so the House may again have confidence in his role, that he is proceeding forth fairly and without any kind of suspicion.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if my friend from across the way and I were to take a walk in his constituency and posed the question, “Are members of Parliament overpaid?”, if the majority of his constituents were to respond, “Yes, MPs are overpaid”, would the member across the way then take a pay reduction?

When we talk about that so-called smell test, we always have to put things into a proper perspective. It is not just as simple as us just walking down the sidewalk in his constituency and asking, “Is the member of Parliament overpaid?” We need to provide that background information. That is one of the reasons why we have the independence of the commissioner, which is to take away partisanship, and we have confidence in that office.

I like the word “alliance”. I might want to pick up more on that. I appreciate the suggestion, because that is what it seems as of late.

On the second part, when the Minister of Finance increased the GIS, or when he brought in the pan-Canadian agreement to increase the CPP, I suspect that did not help Morneau Shepell. I wonder if the member has ever looked into that aspect.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, obviously we disagree in regard to the ethics of the finance minister, but he has had a lot of experience in government. He has a little more than I have in regard to the number of years he was in the Manitoba legislature. When I was there, he was one of two members in the Liberal Party, so I understand that he is voluminous in regard to speaking in the chamber.

He had an opportunity to do that in Manitoba over the years when I was there because spoke to a lot of bills as an opposition member. We have to remind ourselves that for 22 or 23 years he has been a member in Parliament and only two of those have been in government. He has a lot of experience in opposition and I look forward to the day when he is over here again. That might happen in two years.

The member talked in his opening remarks about the real world. The real world is that the government has huge deficits and Liberals are adding to the debt. They are making the costs of food, clothing, and heating family homes higher. They have broken about 50 promises that they tried to make and they have only been in government for two years.

I wonder if he can articulate to the people of Canada why we would not be working with the NDP and all Canadians on such an important issue as the ethics of one, if not two, of the top people in government today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I did enjoy the many years in opposition in the Manitoba legislature and working with my colleague across the way there on many occasions. Having said that, in total it is about 20-plus years in opposition, two years in government. I am hoping to match and level it out hopefully, but we will have to see if the voters of Canada will make that determination.

I appreciate what the member across the way highlighted in regard to the deficit. We had a fantastic announcement about housing yesterday. The first, historic, national housing strategy was put into place yesterday. If we took the recommendation at least in part of what the member across the way is saying, and we were to have those types of debates, I have a lot of files on the deficit situation.

For example, I would say that the Harper government inherited a multi-billion surplus from the Paul Martin government before the recession that turned into a multi-billion deficit. Harper never really got rid of the deficit. We believe that, by investing in Canadians, things will happen in a more positive way here in Canada. We are starting to see the results of that with just under 500,000 new jobs in two years.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have to remind my colleague that the money he is talking about is being spent in the next decade and so it is not likely that he will ever get an opportunity to spend it. I look forward to having that opportunity to put a housing program in place that is efficient and works.

We have a finance minister who has broken rules in the House, that has not even been acceptable to his Prime Minister in his mandate letter. How can the member, who knows what those mandate letters say, possibly think that they are following it when they do not have a plan to balance the budget until 2051?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about the code of ethics from the commissioner. We have confidence in Commissioner Mary Dawson. We have made that statement on numerous occasions and the Minister of Finance, like every other member, has submitted his assets, at least we hope all members have done that. We know the Minister of Finance has and he is working very co-operatively with that office and has indicated he will continue doing so.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House and speak during the debate on the opposition day motion calling on the Liberal government's finance minister to reveal all assets he has bought, sold, or held within all his private companies and trust funds since he became a finance minister.

We all heard, and we all know, about the Prime Minister's statement in the House on November 1, 2017, where he said, “sunshine is the best disinfectant”. In his quote, the Prime Minister was referring to his election pledge, promising to provide Canadians with open and transparent government. His belief was that his cabinet ministers would be above all reproach, and the best way to prove it was to be able to shine this sunshine on it and use it as a disinfectant.

We all know about the multiple failures the Prime Minister and his Liberal government have had when it comes to fulfilling their election promises. It is a terrible record of failure. They have disappointed many Canadians who believed in the campaign promises. They believed the deficit would only be $10 billion, and Liberals missed it by another $18 billion.

The finance minister has, for weeks now, refused to use the disinfectant that the Prime Minister recommends to cleanse himself of the shroud of secrecy that clouds his tenure as finance minister. The finance minister refuses to come clean and tell Canadians about his personal wealth.

Before we go on further, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Shepard.

Has the finance minister intentionally refused to conduct himself under the open and transparent rules that the Prime Minister promised Canadians? Has the Prime Minister a-okayed the finance minister's constant and continuous refusal to tell Canadians what investments he owns? Has the Prime Minister a-okayed the fact that the finance minister is using his position to enrich his personal finances and his family's firm?

Is the finance minister wilfully disobeying the Prime Minister? Or is the Prime Minister backing down, succumbing to threats made by the finance minister as he refuses to confess what he owns and how he is using Canadian law, or how he used it, to enrich his own family portfolio?

The Prime Minister talks about his family fortune, so it is possible that the Prime Minister understands his fellow multi-millionaire finance minister's stubborn refusal to share with the Canadian public the details concerning the numbered companies that the finance minister owns. This refusal to be honest and open is disrespectful to all Canadian taxpayers, to the Canadian public, and to middle-class Canadians. No one can trust someone who refuses to tell the truth.

Worse, the finance minister has been playing what we call “silly games” with Canada's Ethics Commissioner for two years. The Ethics Commissioner, contrary to what the former member said, has found him guilty, and I am reading from the nature of the violation that she printed, of “Failure to include in a Confidential Report a corporation”, one of the minister's corporations, “established in France and an estimate of its value”, and it was the corporation that controlled the interest of his chalet in southern France; and “failure to include in the Confidential Report his directorship of that corporation”.

The finance minister is playing games with the Ethics Commissioner. He is playing games with Canadians. That is why he belittled the NDP for joining together with Conservatives. I think every member of Parliament, including many on the Liberal side, are very much concerned with the direction they see this finance minister going. Canadians understand the process.

When someone is named to cabinet, they declare their assets, and the Ethics Commissioner helps the new cabinet ministers sort out their assets so that the new cabinet minister is free to work on policies and government business without a conflict of interest. Everyone does it. Well, everyone is supposed to do it. It is actually easy unless there is something to hide.

We had a prime minister, the Right Hon. Paul Martin, who was also a cabinet minister. He was the minister of finance. He is very wealthy man. His family was famous for owning ships, and paying some taxes in Canada. These were massive ocean liner-sized cargo ships that operated all over the world.

Paul Martin immediately placed his holdings into a blind trust so he could be free to be finance minister, and then prime minister. Canadians had a reasonable assurance that he was not writing laws aimed at enriching his personal wealth. However, the current Prime Minister and his rich finance minister do not seem to understand that, or if they do, they do not care.

Paul Martin took his job and his wealth seriously, more seriously than the present Prime Minister and finance minister do. Both of them have come to Parliament fairly recently and maybe they are just uncertain. Maybe they think there are two different laws for Canadians, the wealthy and those not quite so fortunate. The current Prime Minister was born into his family fortune and considers it a privilege.

The Ethics Commissioner makes certain that these types of issues should not come to the front, and when concerns do come to the fore, she judges them. She has already found him guilty. She is already going through another investigation of the finance minister, the Prime Minister, and of other cabinet ministers.

Canadians do not need or want to hear the details of every asset, but they do want the watchdog to be satisfied that these rich politicians are doing their job without a conflict of interest between the work they do and their personal wealth. Canadians want to be sure that legislation put forward by a finance minister is not above and beyond what normal legislation is. They do not want legislation that would enhance the wealth of the finance minister.

That is part of the concern with Bill C-27, but it is not why we are here. We are here because we want to see what corporations, what assets, the finance minister has held in the last two years, and he is refusing to tell Parliament. He has refused in question period for weeks now.

The paradise papers released a few weeks ago unveiled $250 billion owned by Canadians in offshore tax havens, where no Canadian taxes are paid on the investment profits they generate. Instead of chasing these investments and the rich Canadians who own this $250 billion, the finance minister and the Prime Minister think it is better to raise government tax revenues off the backs of the working class, the middle class, lower income people, small business owners, farmers, waitresses, fishermen, and more.

That is why Canadians are upset about this. They see a double standard. Canadians are upset because they see one set of rules for the finance minister and another set of rules for every other politician, and yet they bear the brunt of the finance minister's attacks. This is disgraceful.

We are watching the 1% right here in action in the House of Commons on that Liberal side. They take care of their own.

I chair the public accounts committee and this morning the Auditor General issued a report on the Phoenix system, a report on the Canada Revenue Agency, and a report on Syrian refugees. Part of what he said in his report is disappointing. He said,

I was hoping that I would be able to talk about something other than results for citizens. I keep delivering the same message that the government does not understand its results from the citizen's perspective....

It appears that our message is not being heard at a whole-of-government level.... Getting these requires a concerted effort across government to understand and measure the citizen experience.

We have the same issue with the Liberal government. It simply does not understand that the people who are being governed are asking for certain responsible measures to protect them from those who govern. That is what the Ethics Commissioner does.

That is why we need to shine a light on the finance minister, so we can see exactly what the House has been asking for, namely, what corporations did he own and what corporations benefited from the measures he has put in place.

For all we know, he could own shares in any number of companies across this country that the government has lent, granted, or given money to, including Bombardier, marijuana grow plants, all kinds of things. All we want is the information. Canadians deserve it.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the member opposite and his work on the public accounts committee. There was a suggestion in the member's discourse that somehow there should be different rules for members or ministers who have been successful, and members or ministers who do not have money. I am solidly in the latter group. I am not wealthy, but I think the rules of ethics apply equally to me as to any other member, and a minister and a member are the same. I would ask if they are proposing that somehow the rules should be different for different types of people who enter this chamber, and whether they trust the Ethics Commissioner to ensure that all rules are followed.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know there are different types of rules, because I served in cabinet. I know that in cabinet, the level of accountability is greater. We recognized that. I can say that former Prime Minister Harper would come in and say to us, “Listen, we need to be above reproach. I do not want you to take a free ticket to a hockey game, because you need to be above reproach; buy your own ticket”. We lived with that type of a standard he set.

The member for Winnipeg Centre asked about the Canadian Wheat Board. I own a farm and can remember when I was told that I should never take out a cash advance because I might end up voting on the Canadian Wheat Board sometime. Absolutely not, the Ethics Commissioner told us, and we did not. The—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am happy to allow for more questions, but maybe the member will be able to add his point in his next response.

The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

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

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary research branch has conflict of interest rules for federal legislatures. In them, it talks about techniques of control. They include, first, disclosure, which we know the minister did not do; second, avoidance, which we are still trying to figure out whether he avoided it or not; and third, withdrawal, which talks about recusal. Could the hon. member comment on any one of those three points in terms of what he sees the minister as having done?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is what he has done and it is what he has not done. We know that he has not claimed a certain corporation in the south of France that owned a beautiful chateau. He did not want Canadians to know about it. He did not want the Ethics Commissioner to know about it. He failed to report it and was found guilty, as charged by the Ethics Commissioner, and paid a fine. We know that is one thing he did not do.

One of the things that concerns me about what the minister did was that he brought bringing forward the new legislation, Bill C-27. I am not going to get into the positives and negatives of Bill C-27, but all we know is that with that one piece of legislation, the minister stands, and indeed stood, to profit massively. We know that his family company's expertise is in target benefit plans. We know that the company has been used to help formulate the target benefit plan in New Brunswick. The minister has not reported his own corporations, he has not reported his own assets to the Ethics Commissioner. He has withheld that, but he has come in the backdoor with legislation. The legislation may be alright, but his company will benefit from it.

When I signed on as a minister, I signed on recognizing that the code says that I should not bring forward anything that would benefit me financially or my family members. It may even say “friends”. I cannot recall right now. Here is the problem. This is why all the opposition parties have joined together and asked why the Prime Minister will not allow this—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. I tried to allow the member some additional time, but his time has run out.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard.