Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2017

Air Transportation

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning on the radio, the Minister of Transport suggested that people are at the same risk from small knives as they are from being smothered by a pillow. However, small knives are still on the ICAO's list of high-risk items, whereas pillows are not. According to the ICAO, there is no obligation to standardize the high-risk items not allowed on planes.

Will the minister finally recognize that he is allowing small knives on planes just to pander to his base?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, air safety is a very serious issue. That is why our government's security experts carefully examined the issue of small knives.

What is more, experts from other countries have come to the same conclusion. That includes France, Germany, Great Britain, Portugal, Spain, Italy, New Zealand, Iceland, and others.

We checked.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is just as effective as a pillow in putting us to sleep.

According to LCN, the transport minister's office recently met with representatives of the Sikh community, and it just so happens that they talked about kirpans on planes. Coincidentally, the World Sikh Organization of Canada welcomed the decision of the minister and Transport Canada.

Does the Minister of Transport really believe that allowing small knives on planes will make passengers safer?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, our decision is based on a periodic review of permitted and prohibited items. Our objective is to ensure airline safety. It has nothing to do with the interests of a particular group.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Now I believe the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope has the usual Thursday question.

Business of the House

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, I would like to ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons what business will be in the House for the remainder of this week and next week.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue the debate begun this morning on the Conservative Party's opposition motion.

Tomorrow, we will have the second and last day of debate at third reading stage of Bill C-45 on cannabis.

Monday, we will resume debate on Bill C-59 concerning national security. We will then move on to the report stage of Bill C-63 on the budget.

We will continue with debate of Bill C-63 on Tuesday.

On Wednesday and Thursday, we shall take up debate on the Senate amendments relating to Bill S-3, the Indian Act, unless we can get it done sooner.

I should also note that we will have the LGBTQ2 apology next Tuesday, November 28, immediately following question period.

House of Commons

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have the honour to lay upon the table the “House of Commons Report to Canadians 2017”.

Also, it seems that I should remind members—and perhaps those staff members who are listening could pass this on to them—that in this House we do not pass between a person speaking and the Speaker.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Finance Minister's assets

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

There are two minutes remaining in questions and comments following the speech by the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, but I will first allow him to answer the question he was asked just before question period.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member had asked about some of the holdings from which the finance minister and his family have the benefit. I am going to let people arrive at their own conclusions on those, but when we see very expensive yachts that are registered in foreign jurisdictions, it shows that they obviously know how to plan, how the rules are set up, and how to arrange their affairs so that they are probably tax efficient.

Again, I have said a number of times today that the finance minister is an intelligent person. If he is aware of how to conduct himself with tax efficiency and within the rules of international waters when it comes to yachts, surely he can navigate the system of accountability that we have here and show Canadians that he has their interests at heart, and not his own. When we make a commitment to the House, not just as members of Parliament but as ministers of the crown or parliamentary secretaries, we take a second oath that says that we will not profit from our own offices. This is how ministers or parliamentary secretaries start, and Canadians expect, when that oath is taken, that they will exercise it with utmost discretion and duty.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the finance minister putting forward Bill C-27, being fined $200 because of his place in France, and saying everything would be in a blind trust when it was not, those things seem to erode the trust of the Canadian people. Could the member comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. One of the reasons we have a very vibrant Canadian democracy, the Westminster system, is that there is expected accountability with responsible government. That means that each one of us is charged with asking questions about the personal conduct of someone discharging his or her ministerial duties. The minister, time and time again, does so and does not respond in a way that allows for confidence to be forthcoming from not just the opposition but from Canadians, and I would hope the government would reflect upon that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the opposition motion calling on the finance minister to finally act in the interests of full disclosure.

There is a well-regarded book called The Improbability Principle: Why Coincidences, Miracles, and Rare Events Happen Every Day by David Hand. According to the author, there are five laws contributing to the improbability principle. There is the law of inevitability, the law of truly large numbers, the law of selection, the law of the probability lever, and the law of near enough.

What is the improbability principle? Mr. Hand states it as follows: extremely improbable events are commonplace. Mr. Hand's theory has been proven by the actions of the Liberal government, and if by some miraculous coincidence Mr. Hand is watching CPAC at this exact moment, he is welcome for the book plug and for proving him right. How? Well, however improbable it would seem that the Prime Minister would go on a record promise-making spree so soon after being elected, Hand argues that it was always possible and indeed probable. For example, this is the very first time in Canadian history that both the Prime Minister and the finance minister are both being investigated by the Ethics Commissioner at the same time. Now, before Mr. Hand gets too big an ego, I think every Canadian knew that the Liberals' ethical lapses were inevitable long before he noted the first law of inevitability.

I suppose it was also inevitable that, in response to questions from the opposition about the finance minister's scandals, the Prime Minister would deflect by chalking up our questions to mudslinging and petty politics. Well, if it is mudslinging and petty to point out that the government is acting unethically for its members' personal gain, then I proudly wear those labels. However, dismissing our concerns as matters not to be discussed in the House is shameful.

Just because the Liberals do not like talking about their unethical actions, it does not mean they have any right to dismiss legitimate concerns as distractions. It does not mean the finance minister has the right to run away from journalists' questions saying that he does not report to journalists. It does not mean the Prime Minister has the right to dismiss questions as mudslinging, and neglect to provide an answer. In doing so, the Prime Minister and the entire Liberal government show complete disrespect and contempt for this institution, for accountability, for the opposition, and fundamentally for Canadians themselves by dismissing questions about their ethics as mere distractions, mudslinging, or petty politics.

This arrogance is typical of the Liberal government. Its members believe they are above the law. They believe that it is not wrong as long as they smile. However, by dismissing ethics and conduct as irrelevant, the Liberals forget that they are accountable to Canadians through their responsibility to the House, and they must answer for their unethical and law-breaking decisions, whether they like it or not.

The government seems tired of deflecting questions about the finance minister's ethics, but there is a simple solution. If the finance minister does not want to answer questions about his financial holdings and whether he benefits from government legislation that he actually creates, then he should just not own stock in companies impacted by his decisions. He should fully disclose the assets he owns and controls.

What is in the numbered companies that he is trying so hard to hide? Is he voting for legalizing pot because he has shares in a pot company? Is he handing out millions of taxpayers' dollars in bonuses for Bombardier because he is a shareholder? How about some engineering companies or others that stand to gain from the new infrastructure bank? With his distain for ethics displayed so far, Canadians have every right to second guess his every move.

This solution applies to the entire government caucus. If the Prime Minister does not want to answer questions about using enormous amounts of taxpayers' money to fund his vacations to billionaire island, then he should not take expensive vacations on the taxpayers' dime. If the Liberals do not want to talk about broken promises, they should just stop breaking promises. However, that is the problem with the government. The Liberals promise to act ethically, openly, and with an eye to accountability, but as with so many promises to date, they cast aside any casual nod to openness and transparency the moment it becomes inconvenient to be honest.

It has been apparent from day one that “open by default” is just another promise to be broken once in power, but let us let the Liberal record speak for itself.

A year ago we were talking about the cash-for-access fundraisers. The Liberals were selling government access for donations but bowed under political pressure once they realized they could no longer pretend they were not wrong, promised to do better, and then went right back to selling access. The Liberals were forced to back down from expensing limousine travel to the taxpayer. If it were not for the “petty” opposition, the Liberals would still be charging Canadians absurd amounts for limo rentals. Last Christmas, the Prime Minister took a private helicopter to billionaire island for a vacation, compliments of a registered lobbyist, and then he failed to disclose the true cost to taxpayers.

If it were not for the mudslinging of the opposition and pressure from the media, we would not have any idea that the Prime Minister broke the law by flying in a private helicopter and accepting a gift from a registered lobbyist.

Earlier this year, the President of the Treasury Board introduced reforms to the Access to Information Act, which the Information Commissioner herself deemed regressive. The minister was supposedly open to amendments, cue the smile, but then summarily dismissed the majority of our substantial amendments to the act.

Recently the government operations and estimates committee tabled a unanimous report recommending a substantial overhaul of the whistle-blower act. The Treasury Board president promptly blew off the proposed overhaul, instead opting to limit any reforms to minor tweaks, the type of reform that every expert warned was insufficient to protect whistle-blowers.

I want to quote one witness who was at OGGO to provide a human aspect to the government's broken promise. David Yazbeck, a whistle-blower advocate, stated in committee:

...if I can be a little strong and almost emotional here...whistle-blowers are heroes. They risk their families, they risk their careers, and they risk financial stability in order to make the operation of government better and therefore improve the lives of Canadians.

The system....doesn't work. It needs to be fixed. This committee has a golden opportunity to do that. I would urge you to listen to people like us and do that. This is not only better for whistle-blowers. This is also better for Canadians.

In response to a motion I tabled asking the Treasury Board president to appear in committee to detail the concrete actions the government plans on taking to protect whistle-blowers, the Liberal committee members voted it down.

The Liberal record of closed-by-default and broken promises continues with the finance minister's recent troubles. After having been fined $200 for breaking the law, the minister is trying to pretend that he has done nothing wrong. Given that there were actual punitive actions taken against him, he is deliberately misleading the House and Canadians as a whole when he says that he has always acted according to the law.

The Liberals promised to do better. They promised to go above the spirit of the law, but the fine from the Ethics Commissioner shows that the government is not even willing to follow the letter of the law. There is no one, save for this government, that would defend its actions, yet every day, the Liberals continue their charade and pretend that they are on the side of the angels. They make promises they have no intention of keeping, accuse the opposition of being petty for, heaven forbid, opposing their agenda, and dismiss any legitimate questions about their lack of ethics as distractions not worthy of this place.

Canadians deserve better. The finance minister will not even apologize for breaking the law, let alone for misleading the House about his actions and hiding his assets. He spent months attacking small business owners as tax cheats for trying to escape the death grip of taxes being imposed by the government, when it turns out that he is doing the exact thing he has accused others of. Again, he refuses to apologize.

The finance minister claimed that now that he has divested his ownership of Morneau Shepell, he can act freely and without conflict. He does not seem to realize that he has implicitly admitted to being in conflict for the past two years of his mandate. Since September, it has been surprising revelation after revelation for the minister. Hand's law of inevitability has proved true.

Again, it is a simple solution. He could prevent any future surprises just by fully disclosing his assets, as promised by the Liberals and demanded by the Prime Minister of his entire cabinet. Looking at the Liberal's mandate letter tracker, under “don't break conflict of interest laws and make millions on a company you legislate”, we can consider this one “under way with challenges”.

This is why we work to demand accountability from the government, why we hold its feet to the fire every day in question period, and why we will not back down from making the Liberals answer for their betrayal of the trust of Canadians.

The mandate letter tracker is a shining example of Orwellian doublespeak, Liberal spin, and the government's inability to police itself. Therefore, we will continue to keep asking the finance minister what else he is hiding in his numbered companies.

When we look at the Liberal government, like all Liberal governments we all know, some familiar themes keep popping up. When challenged, they hide behind the lowest standard. They deflect questions of integrity and ethics and act like rules are for the little people and not themselves. That is all very Liberal and all very inevitable indeed.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. It was interesting, kind of all over the place, as if it was written by a Conservative talking points generator, going from one hit to the next.

What the hon. member did not mention was an economy that is on fire, that is performing the best in the G7. He also mentioned promises not being kept, but a promise was delivered yesterday on working for the most vulnerable and delivering on housing. Perhaps he could comment on that, or the Canada child benefit that reduced child poverty by 40%.

A lot of the promises we made are promises we delivered for working and middle-class Canadians. We will continue to do that under the minister's plan and oversight.

I wonder if he could comment on that and the great work the minister is doing and how we are sticking to our plan to help the most vulnerable in the country.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the last 30 seconds of my speech, I said that when Liberal governments are caught being Liberals, they hide behind the lowest standard and deflect questions on ethical integrity. Here we have a perfect example. Just seconds after I finished my speech about how the government deflects from its ethics and its issues, instead of answering the question about the lack of ethics of this finance minister, the Prime Minister, and the Liberal government, the member deflected and asked other questions.

I wish colleagues on the other side would actually answer a question about the ethical failings of the finance minister, which is addressed in the opposition day motion.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I usually do not support Conservative motions. That has certainly been my trend over the past few years, because quite often, I disagree with them. However, the motion today is to call on the finance minister to reveal assets he has bought, sold, or held within his private companies or trust funds since he became finance minister to determine if there are any conflicts. I am surprised that we even have to debate this or even have to bring forward a motion like this to push the finance minister to do the right thing. This is something he should have done years ago.

Why does the member think the finance minister is refusing to do the right thing and reveal his assets?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I used to work in Burnaby. It is a wonderful part of British Columbia. I would like to go back there one day, perhaps when my colleague is done.

To be honest, I think the finance minister is not revealing what he is holding because he is obviously afraid to reveal the information. He was afraid to reveal that he was holding a mansion, a villa, in France. He was afraid to reveal that he was actually holding shares in his own company, held within, using a loophole, a numbered company that he completely held 100% of and controlled himself. I think he is evidently hiding something. I mentioned in my speech that perhaps he bought stock in pot shares. Perhaps he bought shares in other companies he financially regulates himself. I think the minister is hiding something, because he is afraid to come clean with Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, repeatedly today, during the speeches by our Liberal colleagues, they pointed out a very rosy picture of our economy, yet we know that the average family is paying $840 more in taxes than it was two years ago when the Liberals took office. In fact, 81% of middle-class families are paying more in taxes today than they were under our government. The Liberals have continually tried to divert the topic back to their supposedly rosy picture.

With the motion before us today, we are asking the minister to simply open up the curtain to let the sunshine in as a good disinfectant. Could my colleague comment on whether his constituents have contacted him about the egregious errors of our Liberal finance minister and how that is impacting the level of trust Canadians have in their elected officials?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are very fond of quoting Louis Brandeis and his “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants” quote, but they never mention the first part of the quote, which is, “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases.” That is what we are facing here. The Liberals always try to deflect from the publicity on what is going on with the finance minister.

When I go back to my community in Edmonton West, it is at the top of people's minds that they are paying more in taxes, that there are attacks on their small businesses, and that type 1 diabetics are being asked to pay more, but at the same time, the finance minister is using his powers to shield his own wealth from Canadians. They have lost faith in the finance minister. They have lost trust in the Liberal government.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in this House and speak to Canadians about the hard work the Minister of Finance is doing for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

The motion says “sunshine is the best disinfectant”. That is why on October 19, 2015, after 10 years of cloudy skies, people in Canada voted for real change and let the sun shine in. Let me repeat that: let the sun shine in.

We have been clear right from the beginning that the economy needs to work for the middle class and those working hard to join it. This is a must. My parents immigrated to this country, because they knew that in this country, there were rules, and as long as one followed the rules and worked really hard, they could be successful. That is why we have had a clear focus to ensure that hope and hard work succeeds for Canadians all across this country.

First we introduced a middle-class tax cut, which continues to benefit nearly nine million Canadians. Then we introduced the Canada child benefit, which has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. Compared to the previous system, in which child benefits were not targeted and were given to millionaires, the CCB is an after-tax targeted benefit that is helping a lot of families, including in my riding of Brampton East, where almost $10 million has been given to Canadian families in need of additional assistance.

In the fall economic statement, the Minister of Finance announced the government's intention to accelerate the indexation of the CCB by two years, to July 2018. This simply means better support sooner to ensure that the CCB continues to play a vital role in helping low- and middle-income Canadian families with children.

This was announced less than a month ago, and I had the honour and privilege of hosting the Right Hon. Prime Minister in my riding. He met with families in my riding that had young children, who thanked him for the investments in families with the Canada child benefit. It was a great day.

Every time I get up in this House, I invite all members to my riding, especially the Speaker, because it is a wonderful place. We run basketball camps on Sundays. I want to see the Speaker there shooting some hoops with the people of Brampton East.

Moving right along, we also announced the government's historical agreement with the provinces to enhance the Canada pension plan. At maturity, it will increase the maximum retirement benefit by about 50%. In today's dollars, that represents an increase of nearly $7,000, to a maximum benefit of around $20,000. With the recent action by the Government of Quebec to enhance the Quebec pension plan in a similar fashion, Canadians from coast to coast to coast can now look forward to a safer, more dignified retirement.

Our government knows that those working hard to join the middle class can face financial barriers to joining or rejoining the workforce. That is why, as part of our agreement to enhance the Canada pension plan, we increased the working income tax benefit. Because the economy is growing, we are doing even more to help those working to join the middle class. In the fall economic statement, the government announced its intention to further enhance the WITB by an additional $500 million per year. This will provide even greater support for current recipients and will ensure that more workers can qualify.

In the fall economic statement, the government also announced its plan to reduce the small business tax rate. By doing this, the government will help small business grow and create jobs. The small business rate will be lowered to 10% just five weeks from now and to 9% a year from now, in 2019. This means up to $7,500 in federal corporate tax savings per year to help entrepreneurs and innovators do what they do best.

Small businesses are a key driver of our economy and a cornerstone of our communities across this country. As our plan works to grow the economy, small businesses see the benefits of that growth with lower taxes. As we lower taxes on small businesses, we are committed to ensuring that low taxes support businesses, business growth, and investment and do not give personal tax advantages to the wealthy over the middle class.

We inherited a system that encourages wealthy individuals to incorporate in order to pay less tax. This means someone making $300,000 can save about as much on tax as the average Canadian who earns $48,000. We are making changes to address tax advantages that only the richest individuals using high-priced accountants can take advantage of.

We have listened to small business owners, professionals, farmers, and fishers and will move forward in a way that protects small businesses, the middle class, and innovators and entrepreneurs.

There is more. Budget 2017 also laid out the government's plan to invest $81 billion over 11 years in public transit, and in green infrastructure, social infrastructure, and transportation infrastructure in support of trade in rural and northern communities—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know you allow a lot of leeway, but there is an issue of relevance here. The member has not once discussed the motion in front of us today.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

This point of order occurred earlier in the day.

Members will know of course that the Standing Orders are clear on the issue of relevance. I note that the member is six minutes into his 20-minute speech and he did cite one phrase from the motion.

For the hon. member's benefit, and others for that matter, members agreeably are given considerable latitude in coming around to the motion that is before the House. It is difficult for chair occupants, as one cannot judge relevance until such time as members have had an opportunity to present their arguments. Sufficient time needs to transpire until we see where the member is going.

What is important is that before the member presents a continuation, or a theme of arguments, shall I say, it would be good to introduce at the outset how that particular set of arguments applies to the question that is before the House. The member may want to think of that and incorporate that into his remarks. I am not here to tell him how to frame his arguments, but certainly that would be one way to make the relevance connection.

The hon. member for Brampton East.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I feel like I am back at law school, so thank you so much for the lesson on how to present an argument. In his point of order, my hon. colleague said I was not being relevant, but the fact of the matter is that the first six minutes was just my preamble. I will get into it.

We started by saying that sunshine is the best disinfectant. The Ethics Commissioner has a role to play and we all respect her for the great job she does in ensuring that all members of the House, including ministers, the Prime Minister, opposition members, members on the backbench, members of the third party, and independent members, are held to high ethical standards. All members are elected to the House by great Canadians and sit down with the Ethics Commissioner to make sure they are onside and do not have any conflicts of interest with their government and parliamentary work.

The Minister of Finance proactively sat down with the Ethics Commissioner when he was elected as the MP for Toronto Centre, and subsequently appointed as the Minister of Finance. He followed her advice. He set up a conflict screen and he went forward building a stronger economy for Canadians. That is simply what the matter is about. There is a set of rules. The minister followed those rules. He met with the Ethics Commissioner. She provided a recommendation and he followed that recommendation and went on to build a great economy in the last two years.

That is the problem, and I get it. When I was in opposition, I was an innocent bystander. I have had the great fortune of being in politics since I was age 19, including as a volunteer. When members are on the opposite side of government, it is frustrating, especially being on the opposite side of our government, which has the fastest growing economy in the G7, has created 500,000 new jobs, has cut taxes for the middle class, has reduced taxes for small businesses, and increased the Canada child benefit and lifted 300,000 children out of poverty.

Of course, people will find things to talk about. Opposition members love to talk about relevancy. The Ethics Commissioner did her job. The Minister of Finance followed her recommendation and now is focused on making sure that Canadians from coast to coast to coast have an opportunity to work hard and succeed. That is what we are focused on, and opposition members can focus on distracting us, but it is not going to work. We have seen this song and dance before, and that is why sunny days started on October 19, 2015, and will continue for years to come.

With the budget, the government showed its commitment to put together a new housing strategy to help ensure that Canadians have more affordable housing meeting their needs. Yesterday, the right hon. Prime Minister and the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development announced how they would make housing more affordable for Canadians. Canada's first ever national housing strategy is a 10-year, $40 billion plan that will give Canadians a place to call home. It will promote diverse communities and will build housing that is sustainable and accessible.

All of the government's investments to date are having a real impact on Canadians and our economy. The Canadian economy is the fastest growing economy of the G7 countries. How come the opposition never likes to talk about that? The Canadian economy has created over 500,000 jobs since our government was elected in 2015.

I am hearing a little heckling from my NDP colleagues, so I would love to remind them that the Canada child benefit, which has directly helped to lift 300,000 children out of poverty, is something that party voted against. Until they can come full circle and realize that they voted against middle-class tax policies, they really should not throw stones when they live in a glass house. Among young Canadians, the unemployment rate is the lowest on record. Labour market participation among working age women is at an all-time high. Canada also has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio among the G7. According to projections by private sector economists, in just five years from now, the federal debt-to-GDP ratio could be at its lowest level in 40 years. Our plan is working, but we are not done yet.

As we look forward to the future and our next federal budget, the government remains focused on how best to grow the Canadian economy, and how to make sure that the growth benefits all Canadians. That means it will continue to make smart investments in people and communities, to ensure continued progress for the middle class and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga is rising on a point of order.