Debates of Feb. 6th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Conflicts of Interest

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by 12 minutes.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, continuing my remarks, that is the kind of progress Canadians expect. We are very proud to have created growth that benefits everyone, not just the top 1%. This is another example and another reason the Conservatives are focused on the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner rather than the Canadian economy.

Our government is headed in the right direction. While the opposition continues to focus on other matters, and this matter in particular, which has officially been deemed closed, we will continue to invest in the middle class, in our communities, and in our economy. We will carry on with our plan to make life better and fairer for the middle class and those working hard to join it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's contribution to the debate today as most Liberal members are shying away from speaking to this.

However, it goes back to this. Does the member not believe that all of us, particularly the highest leaders in the country, should respect the public trust? We may have legitimate debate over which path we may take toward greater prosperity or greater fairness in our country, but does member not agree that we should all have the same values when it comes to the monies that are given to us to be spent with utmost of prudence?

The fact is that his leader was found guilty. He is the first prime minister in office to break a federal statute. Does the member not believe in the principle that if he is not justified in using those funds, he should pay them back, the same as the previous health minister did when she was caught utilizing funds for limousine services? Does the member not believe in that fundamental principle of the public trust?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing the Prime Minister did was address Canadians directly. He went out there and answered questions from the media directly, speaking directly to Canadians. Following that, he went on a national tour and spoke with Canadians, answering questions on a wide range of topics, including this one.

The Prime Minister accepts the findings in the report issued, and he has taken full responsibility.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I definitely feel that an entire day debating this point is a lost opportunity. There are issues, frankly, on which I would like to take the Liberal government to task, and they are a wide number. Unfortunately, from my seat in this place, I do not have access to supply day motions. However, surely there are more critical issues. I note that when I did town hall meetings in my riding, no one raised this issue.

To focus on the matter at hand, would the hon. member agree with me that the Conflict of Interest Act should be strengthened? Often people who are on the procedure and House affairs committee relate my experience of finding that the advice from the Ethics Commissioner is entirely vague, the rules are unusual, and that the advice she gave to our current finance minister was clearly bad advice.

Could we not tighten up the rules and have enforcement mechanisms be part of our legislation, so we know exactly what the rules are, and abide by them or face the consequences?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want share my hon. colleague's thoughts. When I go door to door and speak with my constituents, this is not among the issues of concern to them.

However, when we move forward year after year in the House, we look at areas where there could be room for some improvement. In this area with respect to the rules that govern the office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, I definitely think we can always improve. I look forward to working any member in the House who wants to look at those and possibly propose improvements, making it better, so we have better representation and are held more accountable by our constituents in various ridings.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to follow up on the last question and the fact that many constituents are not focusing on this issue.

One of the things that they are focusing on in Durham region, which my riding of Whitby is in, is the economy. Now we have an unemployment rate of 5.6% in that region. It has not been that way in 15 years.

Is my hon. colleague facing the same sort of questions at the door and commendation of our government's hard work?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am experiencing the same thing at the doors in my community. However, there are some differences in the issues about which my constituents talk to me. The environment is a particular issue of concern. They want to ensure we continue our work of finding that delicate balance between economic growth and protecting our environment for future generations. I have assured them that I will be focusing on that and that it will be a priority for me moving forward.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today. All members in the House were elected by their constituents to represent them. I know I speak for all of us when I say we are proud to stand here and debate issues that are important to Canadians, issues such as jobs, security, and environmental issues, issues I hear from my constituents when I speak with them in the riding, as was mentioned by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands earlier today in this debate.

I find it unfortunate that instead of talking about these very important issues to grow the economy and create new sustainable jobs, the Conservative Party has decided to put partisan politics before Canadians and choose one of its few allotted days to discuss a topic for which the Prime Minister has repeatedly taken full responsibility. As the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said, “a lost opportunity”.

Let me tell everyone the facts.

Immediately after the commissioner's report was tabled, the Prime Minister took full responsibility and accepted the findings. On top of this, the Prime Minister will continue to work with the commissioner and assure that all family and personal vacations will be cleared with the office of the commissioner.

It is also important to note that the commissioner stated that the Prime Minister did not take part in any decisions related to the aid foundation or give instructions to advance any projects in relation to that institution.

The commissioner's office does important work to ensure that members remain accountable and transparent and do not undertake actions that will give rise to conflict. Our government has always worked to ensure the commissioner's office and all officers of Parliament get the support and the resources they need to remain fully independent to do their work.

The commissioner has a tough job and is tasked with both interpreting and administering the Conflict of Interest Act. This includes providing public-office holders with confidential advice, investigating and reporting on alleged breaches, and levying penalties for public office-holders who have failed to report as required.

Our government has committed to ensuring that officers of Parliament, such as the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, remain robust. It is part of the reason why we are putting in a new appointment process that supports open, transparent, and merit-based selection processes. The selection process is designed to identify highly qualified candidates who meet the needs of the organization and are able to perform the duties of the position to which they would be appointed. This new process will help strengthen the trust in our democracy and ensure the integrity of our public institutions. We thank all officers of Parliament for their work and the former commissioner for her outstanding service to Parliament and Canadians.

While the opposition members have tried their best to convince Canadians that the costs related to the security of the Prime Minister are somehow unusual, the fact is that the former commissioner acknowledged these costs would be incurred whenever the Prime Minister travelled. She stated, “If the Prime Minister had gone somewhere else on his own initiative...a lot of those costs would have been incurred anyway.”

Such security costs have also applied to previous prime ministers. Canada's security agencies make determinations on how best to ensure the safety of the Prime Minister, and their advice is followed.

Sadly, the discourse coming from the opposite side is trying to put partisan politics before the very real issues Canadians face every day. The opposition wants to know about paying back taxpayers. Let me tell everyone about how the government has been putting more money into the pockets of Canadian taxpayers.

Nine million Canadians have more money in their pockets thanks to the middle-class tax cut. We were able to lower taxes for the middle class by asking the wealthiest 1% to do a little more. On this side of the House, we know that when the middle class benefits, all Canadians benefit.

Nine out of 10 Canadian families are better off with the Canada child benefit. One of the main reasons I came into politics was to help the disadvantaged, those who cannot help themselves, those who for a short time in their lives face poverty or low income. Helping nine out of 10 Canadian families with children is a great boost and has not only helped those families and children have a better quality of life, but also it has been a huge boost to the economy, which is why there is such record employment.

This program offers a simple, monthly, and tax-free cheque to Canadian families that is more generous than what they received under the previous government.

We were able to put this program in place by doing two things: focusing the most benefits on those who need it most and less on those who need it less, and putting an end to the Conservative practice of sending child care cheques to millionaire families. This has made a real difference in the lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, helping them afford more groceries, take care of expenses, and save for their future. We are able to accomplish these things because we remain focused on Canadians.

Conservatives continue to focus on us, but it will not deter us from ensuring we continue our efforts passionately to create initiatives toward helping grow the middle class. By investing and putting our trust in Canadians, we earn the trust of Canadians. Canadians also trust the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, which operates above the political games we often find in this chamber. This is important because Canadians need to recognize when a statement is made factually, as is done by the commissioner, and when it is done for political gain, as does the opposition.

However, if the opposition wants to continue talking about giving back to taxpayers, it should know we are investing heavily in infrastructure to better support our communities, grow the economy, and create jobs. I have made a number of infrastructure announcements, and I am anticipating a lot more. We have close to economically defined full employment in my riding because of these advantages of not only infrastructure investments, but investing in the families I mentioned, in low-income students, and in seniors by increasing the guaranteed income supplement and the working income tax benefit. We talked about this at the all-party poverty caucus this morning, as well as ideas for even improving that. All these things have helped investment in the economy and are things that Canadians who are in need are really thinking about and looking for their government to deal with.

Canadians will benefit from such long overdue infrastructure funding. We already have seen investments in roads and transit to help connect rural and remote communities so that people and businesses can connect across our vast country. We have done a number of water projects, projects related to airports, wastewater systems, and many other projects related to infrastructure. Many pieces of infrastructure were left crumbling by a previous government, which focused on cuts and balancing the budget, no matter the cost.

We are focused on Canadians and the issues that matter to them. This is why we are investing in our communities from coast to coast to coast and ensuring the delivery of our priorities. Maybe I will say that again because quite often I just hear “coast to coast”. The biggest coastline in the world is the northern coast of Canada, the Arctic Ocean. Please, members of all parties and ministers, it is coast to coast to coast.

This helps explain why we are debating the motion in front of us today. The Conservatives know our plan to help grow the economy is working and, lacking other options, have decided to focus on the Prime Minister.

In closing, as the Prime Minister has said many times on the floor of the House, he has accepted the findings of the commissioner and has also accepted full responsibility. Let us move forward, focus on the real issues affecting Canadians, and work to improve the lives of all those living in our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, many times throughout my colleague's comments, he talked about the Prime Minister accepting full responsibility. Every Canadian knows that accepting full responsibility for an illegal trip that cost taxpayers $200,000 requires that the Prime Minister pay back that money that belongs to taxpayers.

How can he say he has accepted full responsibility until he actually pays back the money that is owing to Canadians?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would caution the member about suggesting what every Canadian knows, when that is not exactly what the Ethics Commissioner, whose job it is to opine on these items, said. I find it intriguing that the Conservatives have, question after question, speaker after speaker, in the entire debate today, asked someone to pay back costs when they have not identified any costs other than security. If there are no costs to pay back, why do they keep asking for costs to be paid back?

As I outlined in my speech, security costs are covered for the Prime Minister wherever he would be.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have been thinking about this for a long time and this motion is the opportunity to bring it forward.

When are we, as parliamentarians, going to get over the gotcha politics on some issues? I know there has to be opposition, but the point I want to make is this. I do not care whether it is Stephen Harper, Paul Martin, Jean Chrétien, or the current Prime Minister. As a country, we should be proud that those prime ministers were and are secure when travelling. There is one reason 24 Sussex has not been fixed up for three decades. It is because if any prime minister did, it would not matter which party, the other opposition parties would stand up and say, “Look at the millions they are wasting.”

Two Parliaments ago, cabinet ministers in the House were flying commercially when they should have been flying on the Challengers. The reason they were was the opposition parties. We would do the same if we were on that side. Any other country would ensure that their parliamentary secretaries or cabinet ministers could fly securely, that they could carry secure documents, and be proud of what they do for their country.

We somehow have to rethink this. This is a matter of security for the Prime Minister. I am not going to get into the Ethics Commissioner's report, but this is a matter of security for the Prime Minister and we are belittling ourselves by the way we deal with some of these issues.

The Prime Minister is flying around in an Airbus that is how old? I remember when Brian Mulroney bought that Airbus, for which he was attacked, so he did not change it to a more efficient aircraft, like a C Series Bombardier plane, that would have enabled us to fly proudly around the world. The Prime Minister knows the minute he does it, instead of advertising our products around the world and ensuring his own security, he would be attacked for doing it.

I am saying that we need think about this and what we are doing to our cabinet and to our country with the way we handle these issues.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member on a macro-scale and a micro-scale. On a macro-scale, I agree that all parties in the House, mine included, spend too much time on personnel issues, ethics issues, things that could be handled by committee, the number of chairs in an office, renovations. Canadians would be better served if we dealt with poverty, the environment, jobs, the disabled, etc. I offer that warning to all parties to respect the institution so that in the short time each of us is here, we are dealing with the things that make the most difference for Canadians.

On the micro-level, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands made a great speech this morning and said something I had not realized before. She said she did not need a couple of security people and was told she had to have them, so the security agencies determine what the security requirements are. Wherever the Prime Minister goes, there has to be security. It could be a far-off place. Had he done something different on this particular vacation, it could have cost more or less for security, depending on what he chose to do.

It is important that we recognize that and get on with dealing with the other issues that people bring up to each one of us as we go door to door.

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

Mr. Speaker, I requested to join this particular debate because there are some troubling issues that are beginning to arise as a result of this discussion.

Before I continue, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the great member of Parliament for Brandon—Souris.

I want to address some of the comments made by the member for Malpeque. He was part of a government that proposed bringing in an ethics commissioner. He was here for the Airbus purchase by the former Mulroney government. It is always interesting to me that when people are in positions where they have the ability to say something, they do not until it is past their turn to do something about it. Better late than never, I guess.

The issue today though is not about security. The issue is fundamentally about our country and its expectations toward the public trust. When Liberal members, or anyone in this place, tries to conflate it with 24 Sussex Drive and the insufficiency there, or Challenger jets, or whether or not ministers should fly in business class or have a government jet, it is extraneous to the conversation here today because we are talking about the public trust and the standards that the Prime Minister sets for the country.

Those members in this place who were also members of the previous Parliament would know that in 2014 the Ethics Commissioner issued an advisory warning to all members on the acceptance of gifts. Some members have quoted from that document. Here is one of them. “Members are not allowed to accept any gift or benefit that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence them. I remind you that the $200 threshold at which acceptable gifts or benefits must be publicly declared”.

Here is another one. “If the person or entity offering the gift is seeking or is likely in the future to seek your support in the exercise of a duty or function of your office, then you must refuse it. This applies to all organizations, including non-profit and charitable organizations.” Here is one more for good measure. “You are prohibited not only from accepting such gifts directly, but also indirectly.”

I remember this well. At the time that memo came out, as it happens, I received a mixed supply of vitamins from the natural supplement industry. It just came through the mail. I had no idea what the value was; however, in abundance of caution I sent them back, as I know many other members of Parliament did at the time.

Here is the thing. Back in 2014, the Prime Minister was, as we know, a member of that previous Parliament, meaning we know full well that he also received the same memo, and that memo was very clear on what constitutes and defines a gift, so the Prime Minister cannot possibly pretend he was unaware of what officially defined a conflict arising from a gift. Interestingly enough, we have not heard from the Prime Minister that he either was or was not aware of the definition of a conflict.

Instead, apparently if one claims that someone is a close personal friend, then it should be okay to receive gifts from that friend that would otherwise be declared in conflict, and more so when that friend just happens to be the head of a foundation that receives millions upon millions from Canadian taxpayers and is also registered with the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada. Does that seriously make sense? These are seriously well-known facts listed on government websites and those of independent officers of Parliament.

Here is where it gets more bizarre. We find out that the Prime Minister also brought along the president of the Liberal Party of Canada and another Liberal member of Parliament on this trip.

We are told this 394-acre private island is worth in excess of $100 million. I only mention this of course to ask what the value of a private vacation of the level of opulence and extravagance as this would be. We do not know. What we do know is that it is well above the $200 threshold required for disclosure under the act. There is not even a shadow of a doubt about that. The Prime Minister, Mr. “Sunshine is the greatest disinfectant”, did not disclose any of this to the conflict commissioner. It was a secret the Prime Minister was silent on until a reporter found out.

Here we are. Why is this troubling? It is troubling because of course the law has been broken by the Prime Minister.

Therefore, the question remains, what happens because of that? Ultimately, that is the purpose of this debate today. If members of this place are found guilty of receiving a benefit they were not entitled to legally receive, should they be able to keep that benefit, and more so if that benefit resulted in a cost to Canadian taxpayers?

We all know that if everyday Canadian citizens made a decision that resulted in their receiving government benefits they were not entitled to receive, not only would they have to repay those benefits, plus interest, but they could have their bank accounts seized or their wages garnisheed. I can tell members that there are single mothers who have had this very thing occur to them when it was ruled that they were not entitled to the Canada child benefit they received.

Here is my question for this place. Why should this principle, which applies to everyday Canadians, not apply to the Prime Minister? Why is there one set of rules for the Prime Minister and another set of rules for everyone else? A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, unless one is the prime minister and then apparently one should not be required to pay back illegal benefits the same way everyday Canadians are.

Keep in mind that no one forced the Prime Minister to take this trip. No one forced the Prime Minister to bring along the president of the Liberal Party of Canada. These were all choices by the Prime Minister. I would like to think that at least some in the Prime Minister's inner circle would have advised against taking this trip, but ultimately we know that the Prime Minister does not care. This is a Prime Minister who by his own actions demonstrates that he believes he should not be subject to the same rules as everyday Canadians.

Our last prime minister, by contrast, made changes to his own pension that were estimated to cost him personally over $1 million. He did that because he was asking MPs and members of the public sector to make adjustments to their pensions, and that prime minister did not believe he should be above that.

More troubling, if this Prime Minister believes that he is subject to a different set of rules and that he should not have to repay the benefits that were illegal, which any other Canadian would be forced to repay, why, at a minimum, does he not come before this place and tell Canadians why that is? Why is the Prime Minister not here today being held accountable for his actions? To be clear, they were his actions. Why is he not defending his actions in front of other members?

Why is it that, when this question comes up in question period from the official leader of the opposition, more often than not the Prime Minister refuses to answer and simply hides behind his House leader? What kind of leader does that? The last one did not. Every time that I can recall, when the official leader of the opposition rose to ask questions, the previous prime minister rose to answer those questions, much as the previous prime minister did when the leader of the third party rose with questions. Of course, that is what a leader does. He or she answers questions from the leaders of the other parties, but this Prime Minister does not.

The Prime Minister chooses, as he fancies, to hide behind his House leader because, of course, he is above having to answer questions from other official party leaders when he does not like the questions. Why is that? It is all because he does not think he should have to repay the cost of something that he and his insider friends decided to illegally benefit from. Those were his choices, and now he hides from doing the right thing and repaying those expenses, or at the very least coming to this place and explaining to Canadians why he does not have to repay them the same way other Canadians would.

This is what troubles many of us. I know that there are many good people on the government side of the House who know the rules of this place and follow them. That is how we honourably represent the citizens of our areas and how we try to keep cynicism away from politics and maintain trust as much as possible.

Now, the Prime Minister has a choice: either repay the funds or at the very minimum come before this place and explain to Canadians why the rules that would impact them in such a situation should not apply.

There will come a day when we all look back at the time we spent in this place. Will the Liberal members think of the time they defended the Prime Minister's illegal vacation, which he was found to personally benefit from, as being what they would have been most proud of in their time here? I suspect we all know the answer to that.

I ask all members to send a message that all Canadians are equal when it comes to repaying taxpayer-provided benefits they were not eligible to receive in the first place.

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

Mr. Speaker, for a number of days now we have heard the Conservatives push an issue for which we have had full compliance from the Prime Minister. He has indicated that he accepts the report. He has met with the former commissioner. Mary Dawson herself believes that the issue is in fact resolved.

Since the report has been out, the Prime Minister has been travelling the country, doing town halls, listening to Canadians, and answering the questions they pose. The issues that are consistently raised have to do with jobs and health care, issues that are real and that Canadians want to have dialogue on. However, the Conservatives are focused on something that has already been dealt with.

One of the member's colleagues had to go before the commissioner, and there was a report on that individual. The Prime Minister is not alone. All members of this House are subject to the rules of the commissioner. The Prime Minister is not the only one. There have been Conservatives, too.

Would my colleague agree that it is time we move on and start debating issues that are also important, such as the economy, jobs, and so much more?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member opposite is tired of these questions. I am tired of these questions. I cannot believe that I live in a country where we have to ask the leader of the country to show accountability.

The way this place works is that we put in place an ethics commissioner who does investigations to make sure that we are following the Conflict of Interest Act and the code of conduct for members of Parliament. However, once that report is tabled, the real penalty is political. Now we have the facts and we can have a debate. The member may not like the debate, or the fact that his leader has put the Liberals in a position where they are being held to account both by members of Parliament on this side and by their constituents. They may want to talk about the strengths of their government, but the way our system works, which he knows as a former opposition member, is that we like to talk about the weaknesses of the government.

I was elected. I talk to people in my riding and I do town halls. They want to see some accountability. I want to see some accountability. The question is, does the member want to see some accountability from the Prime Minister?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I also want to thank the Conservatives for moving this motion.

It may not be the motion that we, in the NDP, would have moved as a priority, but it is true that this says a lot about and is symptomatic of the Liberals' attitudes, and especially the attitude of the Prime Minister.

They seem to think that they are above the law, above everyone else, and they are part of an elite that can do whatever they want.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on something very important. There is a lot of information here, but this situation is unprecedented. A sitting prime minister has never been found guilty of violating the act by an ethics commissioner. That is not insignificant. The Prime Minister is the only one in the history of this country to violate the Conflict of Interest Act while in office.

According to my colleague, what does the Prime Minister's attitude say about him?

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

Mr. Speaker, first, as a Canadian, I hope that every single elected official treasures and acts prudently to maintain the public trust, because that is what people deserve.

Second, as the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, I want to make sure that we have the proper forum to hold the government to account when it fails, and it has clearly failed. This is the first Prime Minister who has violated a federal statute while in office.

Last, I feel bad for the Aga Khan, because the Prime Minister, in his rush to go on a fun-filled vacation with his family, has put a spiritual leader into disrepute with many Canadians. What they see is someone who is well connected. The Aga Khan has come to this place and has done many great things. The Prime Minister and his office have executed their duties in a bad fashion, which has reflected badly upon the Aga Khan. I feel bad for him and I offer my condolences to anyone who feels offended by that, because the Prime Minister, by his conduct, has put that spiritual leader in that state.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad state of affairs when the Parliament of Canada has to debate a motion such as this one due to the actions of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister violated numerous sections of the Conflict of Interest Act, and Canadians want their money back.

As elected officials, we are expected to set the standard of high ethical behaviour. Is it really too much to ask that the Prime Minister repay hard-working taxpayers and be accountable for his lack of judgment? While Canadians know that elected officials are capable of making mistakes, they expect their leaders to own up when they are in breach of their solemn duties in the House.

A lot has been said today about the actions and behaviour of the Prime Minister, and the members opposite would clearly like to downplay this incident. I truly believe that if the Prime Minister had just come forward after the issue was brought to light and answered the most basic questions put in front of him by not only members of the opposition but the media and every Canadian, he could have saved himself a lot of grief and headaches.

While one might question the validity of the Prime Minister's arguments to Mary Dawson, there is no doubt, even taking his story at face value, that common sense would have said that the leader of our great country should not be taking free vacations from someone who interacts with the Government of Canada on official business.

No one is criticizing the Prime Minister for taking time to spend with his family. We all understand the gruelling schedules of elected representatives. I know how much time he has to be on the road travelling to all corners of the country. However, that is not the debate we are having here today.

The issue at hand is that the Prime Minister broke the law. He dragged this colossal mistake on for over a year, and in doing so, not only showed a side that many Canadians find unbecoming but stuck taxpayers with the tab for his illegal soiree in the Caribbean.

If this had been done by any others in the Prime Minister's cabinet, they would have been shown the door so quickly that their names would have been deleted from the Prime Minister's cabinet list within minutes, and by the next day, I would not be surprised if the PMO pretended not to even know them. They would have been ostracized and moved to the back corner of this chamber and would never again be associated with the government.

Let us ponder for a moment if this involved an individual in the public service. For example, a deputy minister or executive who took a free vacation under the exact same circumstances would immediately be shown the door, and the next day, when asked, every Liberal spokesperson would decry the actions of this individual and would promise to crack down on any incidents to ensure that this never happened again. However, because the individual in this circumstance happened to be their boss, not a word has been spoken to even remotely criticize or question his actions.

It would seem that, once again, our Conservative caucus is going to have to put in tougher rules on the ethical behaviour of the executive branch. Our dear Liberal friends have a habit of pushing the envelope and eroding the trust of Canadians in their elected officials. We do not have to go far back in time to see a prime example of how we had to clean up the mess of a previous Liberal administration that found creative ways to be entitled to their entitlements. It was our previous Conservative government that brought in the Federal Accountability Act to set new rules so that we would never experience the same level of mistrust and waste of taxpayers' money ever again.

It has been said by many, but it is worth repeating, that arrogance is the Liberals' kryptonite, and from what we have seen over these past few years, there is no evidence that they have turned the page from previous Liberal mishaps.

No one here wants any elected official to go through this quagmire in which the Prime Minister seems to have found himself. Not only does he have the audacity to ignore pointed questions put to him, he believes that somehow he is the victim in all this.

Canadians deserve better than a Prime Minister who believes that there is one set of rules for Liberals and their friends and another set of rules for everyone else.

We have come a long way since the election of 2015. We went from lofty language espoused during the campaign about how the Liberals were going to change the way Ottawa worked to finding ourselves in this mess. The Liberal government was to be so transparent that it would have set a new standard for all governments to follow. I would not recommend that any government across the country replicate the actions of those who sit across from me today. In fact, I would not even recommend that a student council look to the current government as a good example of how to operate. From the obfuscation to the lack of answers, it is no wonder the Prime Minister's approval ratings are starting to mirror those of his finance minister. While some Liberal diehards still support him on this matter, I would argue that the Prime Minister and his actions fall very short of the behaviour Canadians expect from the individual who sits in the Prime Minister's chair.

Let it be said that today's debate has nothing to do with personal attacks or mudslinging, or whatever word the Liberal House leader has decided to use this week. If the opposition cannot question the government, it is a slippery slope that no one in this chamber would welcome.

I would urge all Liberal members to demand more from their leader. Their constituents certainly do. I would urge Liberal members to call on the Prime Minister to pay back the hundreds of thousands of dollars taxpayers had to fork out for his illegal Caribbean getaway. I would urge them to demand that the Prime Minister answer all questions put to him in this House and that he stop making excuses for his questionable judgment. Spending $200,000 of taxpayers' money on this illegal vacation does not pass the smell test.

The list of unethical behaviour by the government continues to grow. Ministers and Liberal operatives have been caught wasting money left, right, and centre, and the Prime Minister is losing credibility each and every day. From spending $1 million to renovate a cabinet minister's office to wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars to design a budget cover, the litany of Liberal largesse knows no bounds.

I call on all members to vote in favour of this motion. The Prime Minister should cough up the money he spent on his illegal holiday and apologize profusely for his actions. While our deficits and debts grow by the day, and the Liberals nickel and dime taxpayers, they are pushing the patience of Canadians. The time has come to end this chapter and bring a close to these terrible, unethical lapses. When will he finally act the part of a responsible person and pay back the cost of his illegal travel?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will reinforce the fact that the Prime Minister was exceptionally co-operative with the commissioner. We have accepted the report and have gone even further than the report. Since the report, the Prime Minister has been on a tour of town halls, including in our home province of Manitoba, where people have been raising what they believe are important issues, which are important. They deal with things like jobs, health care, the economy overall, our environment, and lots of important issues that need to be debated.

It is almost as if the Conservatives had an awakening. It is as if it was the first time the commissioner ever had to make a ruling on a member of Parliament. That is not the case. The commissioner had to take corrective action on some Conservative cabinet ministers. The commissioner herself provided her thoughts on the issue to the Prime Minister and the government as a whole, and the Prime Minister has accepted them.

It is time the Conservative Party recognized the important issues of Canadians. Conservatives keep repeating, “Pay back, pack back.” Surely to goodness they recognize that when the Prime Minister travels somewhere, security needs to be provided, and there is a cost for that security. There are people around the world who would like to harm the Prime Minister of Canada. Security is not optional. It is important for all prime ministers.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that the Prime Minister broke the law. The Ethics Commissioner found him guilty of contravening four different sections of the Conflict of Interest Act.

The member across the way can obfuscate all he wants, but he knows that we put in the Federal Accountability Act to try to prevent this sort of thing. It was not just another member of the House, who, as I said, would be gone in a minute. It was the Prime Minister who contravened all these acts. He broke the law, and that is the bottom line.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it funny to hear Liberal members say that this is not an important issue.

It is important to understand that the issue is not just about the vacations on the Aga Khan’s island. The issue is whether the Prime Minister has good judgment. There have been several incidents, particularly the cash for access fundraisers, the visit of the Aga Khan, and several bills where the government ignored what it had campaigned on. The number of incidents that have people convinced that the Prime Minister lacks judgment keeps on growing. This is particularly concerning.

I would like to know if my colleague thinks that determining whether the Prime Minister has good judgment is an important issue. When I hear him say that there is not enough money for veterans, I have serious doubts about his judgment. Unfortunately, some people in my riding, perhaps even some who wanted to vote for the Liberal Party, are wondering what is going on.

Does my colleague also think that this is a much larger issue than the vacations on the Aga Khan’s island? Does he think that the Prime Minister’s ability to exercise judgment and the trust that Canadians place in the Prime Minister to do his job are a part of it?

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

Mr. Speaker, because of his actions, of course I do not believe that the Prime Minister has good judgment. It is very profound that the Prime Minister thinks he is the only one who needs to not pay the $200,000 back. As I said earlier, if any of his colleagues had done that, they would be gone.

My colleague mentioned the comments at one of the Prime Minister's great town hall meetings the other day. Veterans have given, in some cases, as much as they possibly could, suffering severe injury and mental stress. The Prime Minister said that they are asking for too much and that he cannot help them anymore.

There seems to me to be a clear lack of judgment in regard to the important issues for Canadians. To answer my colleague's question, it is very clear that the Prime Minister has lost his reputation, if he had one, in regard to being able to carry out, on a daily basis, the concerns of this country. He will not even acknowledge that he had an illegal holiday or pay back the $200,000 cost of it.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I just want to say that I will be sharing my time with the wonderful member of Parliament for Essex. I want to thank her for her hard work on fair trade and workers' rights.

It is not often that we have the opportunity to say it, and I am very happy to do so.

Today I am taking the floor to talk about the Conservative Party's motion regarding the actions of the Prime Minister in a scandal we have all heard about and that occurred before the Holidays, when the Ethics Commissioner tabled her final report. I will get back to that.

As my colleague was saying, this is part of a somewhat larger picture, that is, the Prime Minister’s judgment and the confidence he inspires in Canadians. A little more than two years ago, the Liberal party made a big deal about renewing confidence in the country’s institutions and leaders. It announced that it would do politics differently, that it would work for real people and for the middle class, and that it would not work for the elite. The decisions that the Liberals have taken since then, however, do not track with their nice words and pretty speeches. More often than not, the government's speeches and actions could not be further apart.

Instead of renewing confidence in our institutions, the Liberals have broken promise after promise, not only in matters of ethics, but also concerning other subjects of concern to most Canadians and Quebeckers. I could go on and on about their broken promise on electoral reform.

The Prime Minister told us, hand on heart, that he would institute electoral reform no matter how difficult the job. Then, he claimed that there was no consensus, while all of the evidence pointed to the contrary. That does not make it easy for Canadians to believe politicians. It only increases their cynicism toward our democratic institutions.

The same goes for the broken promise concerning tax loopholes. A CEO earns a lot of money every year and, in addition, he can take advantage of loopholes to avoid paying income tax, while ordinary employees have no choice but to pay. We lose $800 million a year because of a loophole related to stock options. It was undeniably part of the Liberal Party's electoral platform. People believed it. They wanted to think that the Liberal government would do something about it, but no, the Liberals broke their promise, and CEOs will be allowed to continue not paying the taxes they owe.

Being the new environment critic, I have to say that, as progressives and environmentalists, New Democrats were deeply disappointed. We were told that the government would take environmental issues seriously, that the dark days of the Harper era were behind us, that Canada would finally play a leading role on the world stage. However, this government's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets are exactly the same as its predecessor's. Nothing has changed. The targets are the same and the plan is the same. Everyone watching the government knows we will not even reach those low targets with the measures currently in place. Environmental groups are not the only ones saying it. The OECD has called Canada out for not doing enough. It said we are going to miss our targets and we are not doing our fair share. That is extremely worrisome.

The Liberals also told us they would do away with oil company subsidies. These companies do not need government money; they make enough of their own. The people of Quebec and Canada have been giving oil companies $1.6 billion a year. Just like with the previous government, absolutely nothing has changed and this is another broken promise.

Now let us turn to the Prime Minister's trip to the island owned by his billionaire friend, the Aga Khan. I say “friend” because I was tickled by the part in the commissioner's report that said it was a little hard to call someone a person has not seen in 30 years a friend. That is a pretty accommodating definition of the word “friend”.

[An hon. member]

Maybe they are Facebook friends.