Debates of March 22nd, 2017

Government Accountability

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to be here in this House to answer tough questions, and easy ones like the member just asked me.

The fact is that we are always looking for ways to improve things, and today, as we reflect upon the seat of democracy in London, the fact is that we are putting forward a broad range of proposals, including one—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. I am having trouble hearing the answer. I know members are anxious to hear both the question and the answer. I would ask members to co-operate.

The right hon. Prime Minister has the floor.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to highlight that we are always open to improvements and ways to be able to hold this government to account. That includes looking at how things are done elsewhere, including in the U.K., where the prime minister has an entire question period devoted to answering questions.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is proposing to change the rules so he can actually silence the opposition. His plan is to restrict debate, shorten the work week, and limit his attendance at question period to one day a week. No one has ever attempted gutting accountability like this.

I would like to ask him a simple question. What would he have done if former prime minister Stephen Harper had proposed the same thing?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the previous government would not have put out an open discussion paper nor would it have engaged with the opposition in proposed months of discussion in committee on the best way to move forward.

We are happy to be launching an open conversation on how to improve the functioning of this Parliament in a way that meets the needs of Canadian families and Canadian members of Parliament. The fact is we are happy that we are launching in an open way an important conversation that apparently the members opposite really do not want to have.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as is often the case, we did not actually get an answer to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister is going further than Stephen Harper would have ever dared to do in telling Canadians he only wants to show up in question period once a week.

I am going to ask the question again. What would the Prime Minister's reaction have been if Stephen Harper had dared to propose what he is proposing?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Again, Mr. Speaker, the way we are going about this is by opening a discussion, having an open conversation with the members opposite about how to—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. I know that the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton and others will want to hear both the question and the answer. I am sure they will manage to calm themselves. Members in all parties can listen to what they hear even when they do not like it and not react.

The right hon. Prime Minister.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder about the schoolchildren in the gallery who are wondering how effective this Parliament actually is right now.

We are proposing a way to discuss how to improve the quality of debate and allow the government to be held to account in a thoughtful, responsible way, and this kind of shouting is what they get. That is not worthy of this Parliament. It is not worthy of the people they serve.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with answers like that, we really could replace him with a cardboard cutout, and his peanut gallery would never notice the difference.

If the Prime Minister was serious when he said that he wanted to work with the other parties, will he agree to set up a proportional committee where no party can impose changes solely to their own advantage?

If he is worried about the reaction of the students who are here today, will he act democratically for once in his life?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to welcome all the young people in the gallery. We are going to present a budget that will help the middle class and assure its future. That is the type of thing that we should be discussing. The fact that we are proposing—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order.

It is possible for members to get their point across without everyone talking at the same time. Members can raise good points, but only one person at a time.

The right hon. Prime Minister.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are worried about their future. That is why we are pleased to present a budget that invests in their future and that helps the middle class.

I look forward to answering questions about what we are doing for Canadians, because that is what our job requires, that is, serving Canadians to the best of our ability.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I would ask the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier to calm down.

The hon. member for Outremont.

Ethics

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is simple. In the Prime Minister's opinion, what would be an appropriate penalty for ministers who violate the Conflict of Interest Act?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect all parliamentarians to have the highest ethical standards and behaviour that is beyond reproach. It is essential that we maintain Canadians' trust and demonstrate an approach that is worthy of the trust that Canadians have in us.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when a minister breaches that trust, what is the penalty? Instead of going around in circles, the Prime Minister would do well to respond soon.

To be clear, Canadians believe that there is no problem with the Prime Minister taking a vacation, but Canadians do have a problem with the Prime Minister accepting illegal gifts, breaking the law, and then charging the taxpayers over $125,000.

Does the Prime Minister honestly believe that paying back a mere $4,000 is enough when he blew over $125,000 of hard-earned taxpayers' money?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as is the custom for previous prime ministers, we repaid the cost of equivalent commercial flights, but for the first time, we actually put in place a system of rules that oversee that because there was never that in previous Parliaments or under previous prime ministers.

The other fact is the RCMP makes determinations on how to protect the prime minister and we will not second-guess the decisions that the RCMP makes.

Government Accountability

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if he gets his way, we really never will get to second-guess the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister would put everybody's mind at ease if he would just agree that he will not use his majority to ram through changes to the Standing Orders without all-party consent. Unanimity has always been sought for changes to the rules that divide power between government and opposition. For example, the committee that Jean Chrétien set up to review the Standing Orders had unanimous consent written into its mandate, but the current Prime Minister seems to feel that decades of precedents count for nothing.

Why the fuddle duddle will he not commit to the long-standing practice that we do not change the rules without unanimous consent?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Members know we cannot say indirectly what we cannot say directly. I would encourage them to be judicious in their choice of words.

The hon. government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to respond to the member's question and to remind all Canadians that we have shared a discussion paper with members of Parliament as well as the public. This government, including myself, respects the work of the committee and I believe that members have the opportunity to have an honest conversation.

I actually appreciate a lot of the work that the member opposite has done. I know the committee sat late last night and I know that conversation is starting. All we are asking is let us have a constructive conversation to really modernize the way this place works.