Debates of Feb. 6th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Conflict of Interest

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the government House leader likes to say they want to bring the debate back to the concerns of ordinary Canadians. I think ordinary Canadians who are going through their daily lives, who pay their speeding tickets, their student loans, and their taxes, and face consequences from the government when they do not do those things, are concerned to see that the head of our federal government, when he is found to have broken a law, has to face some kind of proportionate consequence. If the consequence is not repaying the whole cost of the trip, I think Canadians, who deal with consequences themselves when they find themselves in trouble with this rule or that rule, would expect the government to say what a reasonable penalty or consequence would be, in light of the fact that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner did find that the Prime Minister broke the law.

Why is it that the government cannot acknowledge that a lot of Canadians think it is right and proper for the Prime Minister to have some kind of penalty assessed for the fact that he broke the conflict of interest law and why do the Liberals not propose some kind of reasonable consequence instead of pretending and deflecting away from the fact that there really is no consequence for the Prime Minister in light of the fact that he broke an important law of the land?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I have explained on numerous occasions, within our institutions we have officers of Parliament and when there are concerns raised, officers of Parliament are able to investigate. The opposition members had concerns and they asked the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to investigate. She investigated. She has offered a report. What did the Prime Minister do? He did exactly what Canadians would expect him to do. He accepted responsibility. Right away after the report was tabled, the Prime Minister made himself available to the media to answer those questions that Canadians were posing.

The Prime Minister went a step further. He has travelled the country and made himself available at public town halls. Canadians are talking about issues that impact them. Canadians are talking about jobs of today and jobs for their children. Canadians are talking about student loans and that is exactly why we, in our platform, campaigned to ensure that students would be making a minimum of $25,000 a year before having to repay.

We engage with Canadians. That is how we created our platform. That is exactly why our plan is working, because we continue to engage and listen to Canadians. That is why I believe that today we could be debating issues that matter to Canadians rather than playing the partisan politics the opposition members choose to play. That is their prerogative. We will continue to focus on Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I generally agree with the motion being put forward today that people should pay back expenses, but I want to confirm what the government House leader said. I held eight town hall meetings during the January break period. The cumulative total of my constituents who showed up was about 1,000 people and I heard from everyone on questions on everything that concerned them, primarily toxic fish factories, pipelines, climate change, and pensions. I did not get a single question on the Prime Minister's vacation. What I do not like about the motion is the suggestion that anyone in this situation should pay back the cost of security. Those are specific to the Prime Minister.

I had that experience myself when I attended COP 21 in Paris. Because it was two weeks after the terrorist attack, I was told by the RCMP officers that they were assigning two officers to me. I said, “I don't need that. I'm fine.” They said it was not my choice and that they were assigning two officers. If I had to, for any reason, pay that back, two officers, two hotel rooms. They were wonderful, by the way, and I am grateful that the RCMP felt I was worth protecting. I disputed the point, but the reality of it is that I do not think those costs should be part of the motion and that is where I differ with my friends in the official opposition. I also think that there are more important issues to debate for a whole day in this place.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that the work the member does is important to this place and I would say that she is worth protecting. When it comes to our security agencies, we need to respect their recommendations. They are the experts in that field and when it comes to officers of Parliament, once again, on this side of the House we have the utmost respect for the work that they do.

I, too, agree that there are very important issues to be debated and discussed. We will continue to make ourselves available to ensure that we are hearing from Canadians. As the member has alluded, there are costs affiliated with the security of the Prime Minister whenever and wherever he travels. We take the recommendations of our security agencies and we always thank them for the good work that they do.

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

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the minister launching the debate on the government side, I want to use my time to register a complaint. The complaint is very simple.

The position of House leader was created during the war because the prime minister had to work with generals in order to facilitate the war effort and could not be in this place. Therefore, a House leader was designated to make sure there was a legislative agenda to roll forward. However, over the past few days we have seen the Prime Minister, during question period, not responding. When an official opposition leader asks a question, the Prime Minister sits down, does not respond, and gives it to his House leader.

When the member for Outremont was the leader of the official opposition in the last Parliament, every day he would question the conduct of a senator in the other place, Mr. Mike Duffy, and every day the previous prime minister would stand in his place and answer uncomfortable questions about the conduct of someone else.

When will the Prime Minister and the House leader agree to start treating this place with respect? She talks about officers of Parliament not being treated well. They are not treating the House with respect when the Prime Minister refuses to answer basic questions about the conduct of his own office.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the confidence that the Prime Minister has in me. I take my job very seriously and I will continue to ensure that all people respect this place. We, on our side, will always do that. We have the utmost respect for this place. Every single day we respect this place. We respect the work that we do and we are proud of it.

As I have said on numerous occasions, the Prime Minister and the government will continue focusing on Canadians. What the member forgot to mention was that former prime minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party focused on Conservatives. They forgot about all Canadians. We focus on all Canadians. That is what we will continue to do. If members opposite want to ask questions that pertain to Canadians, that pertain to the work that is happening in their constituencies, I always welcome those opportunities.

We are taking a whole-of-government approach. The Prime Minister committed to decentralizing the Prime Minister's Office because former prime minister Stephen Harper had shifted that pendulum so far that no decision was made without the prime minister, but we have empowered ministers. Ministers are working on behalf of Canadians. That is why our Minister of Finance has a plan that is working for the economy. That is why our Minister of Veterans Affairs has a plan that is working for veterans. The list goes on. We will continue working for Canadians.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured, as always, to rise in this House to represent the people of Timmins—James Bay and to speak to this very serious issue: the unprecedented situation of a sitting Prime Minister having been found guilty on numerous counts of breaching the Conflict of Interest Act.

I am going to be speaking to the issue of conflict of interest today. I understand why the official opposition brought this motion forward. I have some problems with it, and I am going to talk about them. However, I find it very frustrating that we have a Prime Minister who shows his contempt for Parliament by not bothering to show up to answer questions. I believe that we are in a dangerous position across the world of moving into post-democratic politics. Our Prime Minister is a great example of that. If he does push-ups in the Bronx, it will make international news. I do not mind that he makes international news, but he does have an obligation to come to the House to answer questions.

We were told at the ethics committee that the Prime Minister should not come to the committee to explain being found guilty by the Ethics Commissioner, because the proper place is in the House of Commons. I agreed with that. That was fair. However, members may have noticed that the Prime Minister showed up when Parliament returned, answered a few questions, and then sat down and refused to answer the leader of the official opposition. That is disrespect for this House. I am not here to take the position of leader of the opposition, but this is about respect for the House.

On the first Wednesday, the Wednesday the Prime Minister told us would be the day he answers all manner of questions, he skipped town to do a television town hall. He had a month and a half to do television town halls, but he skipped Ottawa. To me, this is a serious issue.

On the issue of the Prime Minister being found guilty of breaching the Conflict of Interest Act, the New Democrats differ somewhat from the Conservatives. To me, the fact that he went off to billionaire's island with a family friend showed a major breach of judgment. We are not dealing with a criminal act; we are dealing with a breach of judgment. The question of the judgment of this Prime Minister is his extremely close relationship with the 1%, the insiders.

The government always talks about the middle class and how it is here to do everything for the middle class, but if we look at the growing conflict of interest issues around the Prime Minister, it is about the government's failure to even understand what the middle class is.

I have often said that I think the Prime Minister and I grew up in a different middle class. My father joined the middle class when he was in his forties. He had to quit school as a teenager, as did my mom, to go work. It was not until my dad was in his forties that he was able to go back to school, get an education, and eventually become a professor of economics.

The middle class was built not just through hard work but by a whole social and economic structure that made it possible for kids from working class backgrounds who got an education to move beyond. We are seeing that the notion of the middle class is disappearing year after year with growing levels of student debt and growing precariousness of work.

We have a Prime Minister who decided to go off to billionaire's island to hang out with the Aga Khan, his friend, who is lobbying the Government of Canada. That is a problem. Liberals do not seem to think it is a problem. As the ultimate insider party in the country, they are saying that they are their friends. However, the reason we have laws is so friends who are powerful cannot call up the Prime Minister and make changes. The law should apply to everyone. This Prime Minister does not seem to think it applies to him.

In the case of the breach of the Conflict of Interest Act, he broke it on numerous points. He should have known that it was a conflict of interest to accept a gift from someone that powerful who was lobbying the government. The government's response was very disturbing.

Section 12 of the Conflict of Interest Act, on travel, states:

No minister of the Crown, minister of state or parliamentary secretary, no member of his or her family and no ministerial adviser or ministerial staff shall accept travel on non-commercial chartered or private aircraft for any purpose unless required in his or her capacity as a public office holder or in exceptional circumstances or with the prior approval of the Commissioner.

The Prime Minister decided to go on the Aga Khan's private helicopter to get to his private island. In his defence, the Prime Minister said that there was a difference in the language used in the French act and the English one. The French used the more specific term “avions” and not “aircraft”. The Prime Minister felt that this specifically exempted helicopters, which was a ridiculous response. It showed not only a lack of judgment but showed someone who would go to the extent of saying that it did not specifically say “helicopters“ to find a way to slip through the rules and abuse the act.

I have not agreed with many of Madam Dawson's decisions over the course of many years. However, she said that the Prime Minister's position would be to create a legal absurdity and a complete abuse of the act.

I am going to say quickly that I have a problem with the Conservative motion to pay back travel, because when the Prime Minister travels, there are enormous costs. There are issues of security if a prime minister wants to take a vacation anywhere. When Stephen Harper went to see a Boston Red Sox game, there was an enormous cost to the taxpayer. However, the Prime Minister does not get to travel on public aircraft. If the Prime Minister is going anywhere, there are going to be costs. We accepted it for Stephen Harper. People were asking how much money was spent for him to go to a ball game. He was the prime minister. He was not able to take cheap WestJet flights. There were going to be costs.

Therefore, I have a question about the propriety of the House ordering the Prime Minister to pay it back for his bad judgment.

That being said, the problem with our Conflict of Interest Act is that the commissioner does not have the power or ability to render the appropriate penalty. Should the Prime Minister pay a penalty from his personal money for this abuse of the act? Certainly. I think it behooves us within this House to say that we need to overhaul the Conflict of Interest Act to make sure that we do not have sitting prime ministers or cabinet ministers abusing the act and that the commissioner has the power to levy financial fines to force compliance, because if the Prime Minister believes he is above the law, it sends a very disturbing message to his cabinet.

On the issue of overall conflict of interest and the Prime Minister, I am seeing a disturbing pattern emerging. It emerged right after the election. I was so impressed with his talk during the campaign of creating a new, open, and transparent notion of parliamentary accountability. He seemed to follow through with his letters of commission to each of his ministers that talked about the need to have a higher standard. It was not just about the legal obligation but about being seen meeting that legal obligation. I was thinking that here was a Prime Minister who would be willing to do stuff differently, and for a moment, the sun was shining on accountability in Ottawa, but then our Prime Minister decided to go for cash for access.

To me, it is the most grotty thing possible for a sitting prime minister to make himself available to be lobbied for cash. He said that they were not lobbying. Who would pay $1,500 a pop to sit at a private CEO's condo if not to get the ear of the Prime Minister? Was it because they thought he was a funny guy and just wanted to hang out with him?

Chinese billionaires met with the Prime Minister. When he was confronted, the Prime Minister said that they were talking about the middle class. I guess I grew up in a different middle class. Can members imagine for a minute that Chinese billionaires came over to Canada, paid $1,500 a pop to talk to the Prime Minister at a private function, and were worried about folks who are just getting by? I do not think so. The idea that the Prime Minister would use his office to collect those funds for the Liberal Party to me set a disturbing pattern, and it is a pattern that has been repeated.

We saw the issue of the KPMG fraud scheme. KPMG, which has received millions of dollars in federal contracts, set up a scheme so that powerful Canadians did not have to pay their share.

I think of a single mom I dealt with in my riding over Christmas who was not able to pay for her kids' Christmas presents, because every year, CRA cuts her off, because it claims that she has to prove once again that she actually has children. We were calling and calling. There was a seven-week period CRA had to go through, because it had to do due diligence, as it has done three times in three years, to prove that this single mother actually has children, and she was not able to buy Christmas presents. We see the CRA's willingness to go after any ordinary Canadian who owes it money. It shows no mercy. However, when the rich insiders who were caught in the KPMG scandal were found out, CRA offered them immediate amnesty. That is not standing up for the middle class. That is standing up for the 1%.

What did the Prime Minister do after this scandal? He appointed a senior KPMG representative to be the treasurer of Liberal Party finances. To me, that sends a very disturbing message. It shows contempt for taxpayers who work hard and pay their bills. The Prime Minister looked at that KPMG scandal and said, “This is a great guy. I like how these guys are operating. Let us get them to handle Liberal Party finances.” That is a very disturbing tone.

We saw it repeated for Samuel Bronfman, who is the good, close friend of the Prime Minister and a key Liberal fundraiser. Mr. Bronfman was named in the paradise papers, an international scandal in terms of the uber rich not paying their share while they turn around and tell Canadians that they do not have services.

We can make comparisons to understand how this plays out. This past week, the Prime Minister looked a Princess Patricia's veteran in the face, Brock Blaszczyk, a man who lost his leg serving his country, and told him that veterans are asking for more than what the government is willing to give. These are people who were willing to give their lives and their health in service to the nation who came back and have been ripped off on their basic pensions. The Prime Minister can look a veteran in the eye and say that he is asking for more than Canada is willing to give.

The Prime Minister's personal friend, Samuel Bronfman, was then named in the paradise papers for a business scheme he had been involved in. The Prime Minister said that there was absolutely no issue, because the Liberals had been assured that Samuel Bronfman followed all the rules. It is completely inappropriate for a sitting prime minister to interpose himself in a question of a tax case, or potential tax fraud, and tell Canadians that there is nothing to be seen here. Why? It is because Samuel Bronfman is not only a personal friend but raised $250,000 in two hours for the Liberal Party. He is a very powerful person.

We brought in the Accountability Act when the last Liberal government fell to try to close these kinds of loopholes so that powerful insiders who raise money for the party and hang out with the Prime Minister on billionaire's island do not get this kind of access. This brings us back to the Aga Khan. The Aga Khan was lobbying the government for money, and the Prime Minister received a gift. The Liberal Party does not seem to understand that there is a problem with that.

We will go to the next issue. There is a very disturbing pattern of conflict of interest emerging in a government that says it is there for the little guy and the middle class, but time and again, it is looking after the uber rich.

We can talk about the privatized pension king of Canada, who is the finance minister. He is a man who told investors about the enormous opportunities in getting rid of defined pension plans, a man whose company was involved in the largest pension meltdowns in Canadian history: Nortel, Stelco, and now the Sears pension windup. We have a finance minister who is unwilling to do anything to end this kind of corporate pension theft. Well, it would certainly affect the bottom line of his family business.

He brought in pension legislation. In fact, the very first thing he did was bring in pension legislation, and that legislation, Bill C-27, will make it easier to go after other defined pension plans. However, the Prime Minister did not think there was a potential conflict of interest.

Again, I guess the Prime Minister and I grew up in a different middle class. The people I know, who save so hard to get a basic pension, see what is happening to the Sears workers and say, “That could be me.”

Younger people, who see that they will never have a pension, are asking where this government is in dealing with the pension crisis. Well, the government is making sure that the privatized pension king of Canada, who is the finance minister, who is driving the agenda on pensions, is not going to be in a position to be pulled from the file. The government is going to do nothing to help Sears workers, and it is continuing to push ahead with Bill C-27, which is a direct attack on defined pensions.

Over the years in Parliament, I have seen many politicians telling Canadians that they are going to give them a better deal. Sometimes it is like the crocodile saying, “Trust me. Let's go on a picnic down by the riverside. I have your best interest at heart”. However, when one puts in the Samuel Bronfmans, the top people from KPMG, and the privatized pension king in this country to deal with the issue of pensions, one cannot be saying that one has Canadians' interests at heart.

This goes back to the importance of the motion to have the Prime Minister found guilty of using his position in getting a benefit from a billionaire to vacation on a billionaire's island. Again, I will not say that this is an illegal act. To me, this was an astounding lack of judgment. It is within the purview of Parliament to insist that the Prime Minister meet a level of accountability, which he has not done because he has left Parliament and he has not answered these questions.

However, to be clear, I have a problem with the Conservatives' argument that he should pay back the cost of the trip, because wherever the Prime Minister goes, there will be enormous costs associated with the issue of security. However, there does need to be the ability under the ethics act to deal with financial monetary penalties for the abuse of office, and for the failure to live up to the standard. The Prime Minister has set the bar very low for the rest of his cabinet. We need to be working across party lines to ensure that these loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act are shut down and that the Prime Minister is held accountable so that he can restore the trust of Canadians on this fundamental issue.

On the overall issue of conflict of interest, as New Democrats we will continue to hold the government to account. We are not afraid to congratulate it if we believe it is doing something good. We do not have to be oppositional on everything. However, to see the government time and time again favour the interests of the 1% and the insiders while paying lip service to people who are falling behind is simply not acceptable.

We will continue to address these issues and the need to deal with the toxic nature of big money's influence in political life, which is as important now as it was when we had to bring in the Federal Accountability Act back in 2006. I remember at that time we had the corrupt Liberal government up on charges. We had such abuse with lobbyists and insiders. The line back then was “It's who you know in the PMO”.

This struck Canadians as fundamentally wrong, because most Canadians never get the opportunity to call in. Most Canadians never get their cases fixed, except when they go through the system, and that is the way it is supposed to be for the lobbyists and the insiders. There has to be a system. It has to be accountable. It has to be transparent so that the people know why and how decisions are being made. However, with the current government, there is too much of a slip back to the bad old days of insiders and friends.

This is an instructive motion. Hopefully, the Prime Minister will listen to it, and I think the Prime Minister does need to tell Canadians that he will make some manner of restitution to show that he understands the seriousness of having been found guilty on numerous counts of breaching the Conflict of Interest Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am somewhat disappointed with regard to the manner in which the member across the way tries to give what I believe is a false impression. I believe that the government and particularly the Prime Minister has done an exceptional job in terms of reaching out to everyday Canadians. I challenge the member to tell me when a previous prime minister has gone across the country and had town halls with thousands of Canadians being engaged in a very real and tangible way.

My friend across the way says that we are giving support to the elite of society and that we have a Prime Minister who likes to cozy up to the 1%. However, we, as a government, brought in a tax on Canada's 1%. The member will recall that the NDP actually voted against the tax increase on Canada's 1%. There are so many things the member across the way said that are just stretching the truth.

Would the member not acknowledge that in fact this is an issue that the Prime Minister has taken very seriously and has responded very favourably to, and that it is time that we go back to focusing on what is important to Canadians, which is our economy, the middle class, creating jobs, and protecting our health care? These are the priorities of Canadians. Would the member not agree?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was fascinated by my colleague's suggestion about town halls, because they are really important. The Prime Minister relegates questions of health care and veterans to public town halls where he controls the mike, but billionaire insiders pay him $1,500 and they get to whisper in his ear.

How about we flip cash for access and hold televised public town halls with all the lobbyists so that we can see the people who are trying to influence the government? Then we could have the Prime Minister actually invite people like Mr. Blaszczyk, who lost his leg in Afghanistan and is being told, “Sorry, we don't have any money for you. You're asking too much”. That might be a bit more accountable.

I am not saying this in a negative manner toward the town halls. I have been very impressed with the Prime Minister's outreach with town halls, but the issue is that on the first day he was supposed to be here to answer questions in Parliament, he skipped Parliament to do a televised town hall, which can be much more an area of theatre and control for the Prime Minister. His obligation is to be here in the House, to be speaking and responding to questions, because that is how our parliamentary system exists. Our Prime Minister shows a contempt for this system if he is going to ignore this. He has not answered these questions. He deserves to answer these questions.

As for his cozying up to the 1%, when the Liberals did their so-called tax break for the middle class, if people made $23 an hour or less, they got zero, but if they made $50 to $100 an hour they got top bang for their buck. I guess his idea of the middle class is bankers and cabinet ministers.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we go to questions and comments, I just want to remind hon. members that we are not to refer to the presence or absence of members in the House, whether it is today or in the past. I just wanted to bring that up as a reminder.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my colleague's comments, especially with regard to the disturbing pattern of behaviour we are seeing with the government and the Prime Minister, from the broken promises, through the cash for access corruption, and now indeed to all these ethics violations. It seems to me that there are not, today, adequate consequences.

We saw that when the finance minister forgot about his villa in France he got charged only $200 for that violation, and he is an extremely wealthy man. Here, we see the Prime Minister being found guilty of breaking four laws with absolutely no consequences.

While I can entertain the member's suggestion that perhaps the security costs would have happened anyway, would he not agree that in the same way the health minister did not have to pay the total cost of the limousines, just the value of what a reasonable expense would have been, this is a similar case? The Conflict of Interest Act does talk about remunerating for the value of what was received. In this case it was a private vacation on an extremely expensive billionaire's island.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, the health minister was found to have charged up extraordinary fees on limos. There was Bev Oda, who was a notorious abuser of limos, travelling around, and in the end it cost her her career because it was so damaging. People asked how she could justify this abuse of funds. These issues are serious and people do need to be accountable.

My one concern with the Prime Minister is that, no matter where he travels, it will cost. If he goes on vacation or if he goes to a ball game, it will generate an enormous cost to the taxpayers. In the Prime Minister's case, I would prefer some other manner to do this. That goes back to the issue that we need monetary penalties that could be applied, based on the severity of the action. In the case of the Prime Minister, we are not dealing with a criminal act here, but we are dealing with a serious case of bad judgment and a Prime Minister sending a very bad message. With the Prime Minister being found guilty of four abuses of the Conflict of Interest Act, the fact that there are no consequences strikes me as very problematic in Canada. We need to look at this and there needs to be appropriate penalties.

I understand, and we will be supporting the motion, but in future, I would prefer the Prime Minister's travel to be considered a separate issue, even from other parliamentarians, because of his inability to get better deals on WestJet flights. However, there is an obligation to deal with monetary penalties and we have not done that in Parliament. This is a good opportunity to set a path going forward.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the important points my colleague has been making is the importance of having some kind of consequence, and particularly the ability to assess some kind of financial penalty on members of the government who break the Conflict of Interest Act.

I am just wondering if the member wants to highlight for us what that would mean in terms of some of the other conflicts of interest for government. I am thinking, in particular, of the questions surrounding the finance minister and Bill C-27, and also the earlier point that the motion, as written, would not really allow for any obvious penalty to be assessed against the finance minister if he were found definitely to be in a conflict of interest.

How would the approach suggested by my colleague encompass those kinds of cases in addition to the case of the Prime Minister?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the larger issue of ethics and accountability, the need for clear rules that apply to everyone. Certainly, when the Prime Minister is found guilty, there is going to be an extra burden on the Prime Minister because there is an extra level of breach of the public trust.

When we do these one-off opposition day motions, the problem is that we are dealing with just the Prime Minister, not the larger issue that we have, using the old sexist language, of the gentleman's code that has always operated in Parliament. It is based on the assumption that people are going to abide by the rules. Also, as we saw in the Senate, people look out for each other and breaches are not considered all that problematic because of the club we are in.

Breaches are problematic. Breaches are particularly problematic when it is about the ability of powerful corporate interests to make those calls into the Prime Minister's Office to get things fixed or get things changed. We need to have clear rules of transparency, in terms of who was lobbying and how they were lobbying, and in terms of the gifts that are considered appropriate and not appropriate. The Prime Minister clearly breached those.

We need the ability to administer monetary penalties for the abuse of public trust by officials who will be using their position, their powerful position, to further interests of friends, lobbyists, and party members.

Out of this conversation in the House today should be the beginning of a larger discussion on the need to reform the Conflict of Interest Act to make sure that it applies to everyone in varying degrees, so that the backbenchers have one standard, there is a higher standard for parliamentary secretaries, a much higher standard for ministers of cabinet, and the highest standard has to be for the Prime Minister of this country. We have to be able to put our trust, regardless of partisan lines, in the integrity of the Prime Minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Milton.

I am pleased to speak to the opposition motion. Perhaps members of the House are aware that I have an engineering background, but what they may not be aware of is that every professional engineer in this country has to take an ethics and law exam in order to get their professional licence. We receive a book and we study, and become well versed in ethics, in conflict of interest, and in a number of other issues like that. It is important for engineers to have this background in ethics and to clearly understand conflict of interest because public safety depends on them. Public trust is important.

I would argue that even though understanding ethics and conflict of interest is important in engineering, it is even more important here in the House of Commons. It is important that the Prime Minister, who holds the highest position in the country, have a high standard of ethics and integrity and an understanding of conflict of interest so that public safety is protected and so the public can have trust in him.

The Prime Minister began his campaign by suggesting that the bar was going to be higher. He said that he would be open and transparent. He said the mandate letters to his ministers would call on them to have a higher standard of behaviour so they would avoid even the perception of a conflict of interest. He raised Canadians' expectations and they expected him to do what he said he was going to do.

Unfortunately, the bad behaviour started with broken promises. The Prime Minister said a Liberal government would only spend a deficit of $10 billion. That went out the window. He said a Liberal government would balance the budget within its mandate. Maybe not. He said a Liberal government would restore home mail delivery. No. He said it would be the last election under first past the post. No.

With his constant breaking of promises, Canadians started to question whether they could trust the Prime Minister. That is a difficulty. If an organization is rotten at the top, the rot will work its way through the organization like a cancer. That is what we started to see, from the time the Prime Minister started to do the cash for access fundraisers where billionaires were paying money to him and then receiving deals, such as $1 billion for health care in B.C. or the Trudeau Foundation getting lots of money in exchange for discussions about affairs and business in the government.

That behaviour began to work its way to Liberal ministers. The finance minister started to do the cash for access thing. People would pay $500. One of them became head of the Halifax port authority. We saw it happen with the justice minister and cash for access fundraisers with lawyers that were doing business with the government. This is forbidden under the Conflict of Interest Act. The rot began to spread. We saw violations of expenses by the health minister and the minister of indigenous and northern affairs. All of these things began to erode the confidence that people had in the Prime Minister and in our ability to trust him.

Then we get to the trip to billionaire island. When I first heard that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and a number of members of the Liberal Party had gone to this private island for a vacation, in less than five seconds I knew that they had violated the Conflict of Interest Act.

Members of Parliament receive training with respect to the Conflict of Interest Act as soon as they are elected. I knew immediately that they had violated the act. We are not allowed to accept travel of a value more than $200. To stay at a private island for a week is worth more than $200. Immediately I knew that was bad. Then the Aga Khan Foundation received millions of dollars from the government for its work over time. The foundation lobbies for money. It is clear in the act that members cannot receive anything from a lobbyist because we do not want to create the perception of undue influence.

The Prime Minister said that the Aga Khan was a close personal family friend, but the Ethics Commissioner, in her report, was clear. She said that the Prime Minister had not seen the Aga Khan in 30 years, until such time as the Prime Minister became the head of the Liberal Party and subsequently Prime Minister. Why then would the Aga Khan want to take up this relationship with the head of the Liberal Party, and subsequently the Prime Minister, when his foundation receives millions of dollars from him? I think we can easily see why he might want to do that, but it does not mean he is a close family friend.

Talking about the vacation on the island, my other question is about the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Nobody seems to be talking about this, but in that same first five seconds I thought that if it is wrong for the Prime Minister to accept travel of more than $200, it must also be wrong for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. However, nobody has even begun to talk about that part of the problem.

When someone is caught doing something that is not right, the person needs to own up to it. We listened for a whole year to the Prime Minister and the government House leader claiming that the Prime Minister abided by all of the ethics rules and the acts and there was nothing wrong at all. It was not until all of this came to light and the report was finally issued—I have no idea why it took a whole year—that it was clear he was guilty on four counts of violating the act. He is the first prime minister to break a federal law. Instead of owning up and making up, the Prime Minister apologized and said that we should move on. That is not the way things work.

When the health minister took limousines, she had to pay the money back because it was not an eligible expense. She went against what was allowed to be charged. It was the same for the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs. If the women in his government do not follow the rules and have to pay money back, I do not understand why the Prime Minister thinks the rules do not apply to him and he does not have to pay money back. Is it that the women have one standard and the men have another, or is it that his whole cabinet has a certain standard and he has a different set of rules that he thinks applies to him?

I find that part of it very troubling, because at the end of the day, there is absolutely no consequence to the Prime Minister for what he has done. However, there is a consequence to taxpayers, because over $200,000 was spent on this billionaire island vacation. If part of the $200,000 was spent on security, I accept the argument that has been made that the security of the government goes wherever the Prime Minister goes, but that does not encompass the whole cost. If we think about the equivalent value for the Prime Minister, his family, Liberal Party members, and the Minister of Veterans Affairs to vacation for that week, that is a lot of money. It is certainly a lot more than a $200 fine that the finance minister got. Canadians' trust in the Prime Minister will not be restored until he shows that he is willing to take responsibility for what he did. He broke the law and he needs to do as his other ministers did, which is to pay the money back.

Leadership starts at the top. It is very important that the Prime Minister hold his whole government to account, that all Liberals obey the rules, that they all stop this cash for access nonsense, and that they all understand what ethics are. If they need to be trained, I would be very happy to lend them the book I had to read when I first became an engineer in order to understand ethics and conflict of interest, or they could simply read the guidelines that are clearly available to the government that talk about the fact that members cannot accept travel or any gift of more than $200 and they are not allowed to receive anything from lobbyists.

I would encourage the government to come clean with Canadians, make amends for the wrong that was done, and try to restore the public's trust in the Prime Minister, who, as I said, is the highest office in the land. If it is not pure at the top, it will not be pure at the bottom.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to repeat to members of the House that this is not the first time the Ethics Commissioner has said there was a mistake made. Those members try to give the impression that it is just the Liberal Party that is affected, but the Conservative human resources minister also had a finding on her. She currently sits in the House. There are other Conservatives and New Democrats who are no doubt under review by the commissioner.

Sometimes mistakes happen. What is important is that when a mistake happens, it is acknowledged. We have seen the Prime Minister make that acknowledgement. We have gone beyond that. We are now focusing on what Canadians want us to focus on. We know because we have a Prime Minister who has been touring the country, having town halls, meeting with Canadians, getting a better understanding of what Canadians want, the importance of the economy, jobs, our health care system, and so much more.

The commissioner has made a ruling and we have accepted the ruling. The Conservatives seem to want to see more take place on this, yet we are complying with the commissioner. We are working with the commissioner and we are even going beyond the commissioner. Why do the Conservatives want to continue to focus on this issue when there are so many other important issues that Canadians want the House to debate?

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly there are other members who have violated the Conflict of Interest Act over time. Examples were given earlier today of members who, when the rules changed on what was allowed to be mailed out, were not aware of the changes and mailed things outside their ridings and actually had to pay those costs back. We heard about someone who accepted tickets to an Elton John concert and then had to pay the money back.

The point is not that other members have not contravened the act. The point is that everyone else is expected to pay back the money that was an ineligible expense. That is all we are doing here. We are trying to get the Prime Minister to have the same set of rules that apply to everyone else apply to him. I take particular offence that the Liberal government every time we ask questions about this, divert and talk about everything else under the sun. I understand why the Liberals do not want to talk about this, but Canadians deserve an answer. The Prime Minister needs to be held accountable.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her remarks, and particularly for the indignation she expressed with regard to the situation both on behalf of herself and the people she represents. I must admit that I share her indignation over the subject we are debating this morning.

I am just an ordinary MP, but even if someone were to offer me something like a pair of tickets to see a show or a hockey game, alarm bells would go off in my head. I would wonder whether it was acceptable for me to accept the tickets. We have here a far more serious case involving an individual who holds a much more senior position than I do, and alarm bells should have gone off in his head as well. For ordinary people, taking responsibility for their actions is not just about standing in front of a microphone looking contrite and saying “I take responsibility”. There must be consequences, and restitution must be made.

My question is this: does the punishment called for in this morning's motion fit the crime, which is being described by the commissioner as a mistake? Should we not undertake a comprehensive review and reform of the system so that, when such situations arise, other measures can be imposed in addition to monetary penalties? Examples of such measures could include the loss of the right to speak or vote for a certain period.

Should we review and reform the entire system?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Clearly, everyone knows the rules. I think the rules are very good and people who break them need to pay. The Prime Minister has to pay back the money that he wasted on his vacation.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very deep and authentic relationship and connection with the rule of law. I enforced laws when I was the harbour master of the Toronto port authority. I interpreted laws when I was a lawyer. I have drafted laws as a minister and member of Parliament.

I believe that laws are living documents, and they have to be looked at and changed and updated where the conditions warrant. The motion today seeks to address a shortcoming in the current rules that we face here in the House. It is worth noting that it has to do with two separate acts, the Conflict of Interest Act, regarding the accepting of gifts and hospitality, or furthering private interests, or being in a conflict of interest in accepting travel, or the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, which as members know, is appendix I to the Standing Orders of this House.

What this motion seeks to redress is a curious situation that we find ourselves in at the moment. It is worth a trip down memory lane to remind us of how we got here. As the House knows, we have had an unprecedented set of findings and facts in the last number of weeks. The Ethics Commissioner investigated a trip that the Prime Minister took in December 2016, along with another member of Parliament. Why I bring up this other member of Parliament will be apparent at the end of my remarks.

The Ethics Commissioner interviewed the Prime Minister twice, in April and in October. She received representations from counsel to the Prime Minister about why he felt he had not violated the act associated with the conflict of interest in his duty as a public office holder, or the code of conduct in his duty as a member of Parliament. She interviewed witnesses as well. She reviewed past findings. She drew up a set of facts which she then distributed to the Prime Minister in order for him to agree with the facts or set the facts correct if they were incorrect. As well, at the end of the day, she made conclusions and she put it forth in a report.

The Ethics Commissioner made five key findings in her report. The first was that the Aga Khan did not meet the definition of a friend, and she believed that the Prime Minister defining a friendship with him was misleading. Second, the Prime Minister breached the act when his family travelled on a non-commercial aircraft chartered by the Aga Khan in March 2016, and as well in December 2016. Third, she found that the Prime Minister failed to arrange his affairs in a way that would prevent him from being placed into a conflict. Fourth, she found that when there were future discussions surrounding federal government grants to the Prime Minister's self-defined friend, he refused to recuse himself from the conversation.

Finally, and the point which I am going to be focusing on today, was the finding that the Prime Minister broke rules when he accepted these gifts. This is exactly what the motion is aimed to redress, an updating of the rules given the set of circumstances.

As I mentioned, I have been in a drafter position. I have been an enforcer, and I have been an interpreter of laws. One thing I know is that when there is a very clear process, which we have, but more importantly a very clear penalty and deterrent, it is very effective in ensuring that rules and laws are followed.

We know the Prime Minister values the ethics code, and we know that he values the Conflict of Interest Act. In his own words, he has indicated it is not enough to merely abide by them in law, but that we should abide by them in spirit as well.

We find ourselves in the situation, in accordance with the Conflict of Interest Act, where the Prime Minister is the adjudicator of what the penalty will be. How does that happen? People may ask how that is possible.

As I mentioned, there are two pieces of legislation. One is the Conflict of Interest Act, and one is the code of conduct. In both cases, there are consequences for breaches by the Prime Minister. The one that Prime Minister was found to be in breach of was the Conflict of Interest Act for public office holders. In the act, sections 44 and 45 are the parts that deal with the conflict of interest and what happens at the end of the report. As I described already, the Ethics Commissioner has powers to summon witnesses, to interview, to draft findings, and then gives the report to the Prime Minister, to the person who is alleged to have broken the rules, and to the public.

Obviously there is a reason that it goes to the Prime Minister. One could surmise, in drafting this legislation, that the reason is that the Prime Minister has the control and power to appoint or not appoint public office holders. He has the control and power to determine who is going to be a minister and who is not. As such, handing over a report with a finding of fact and conclusion that indicates a minister or public office holder has breached the Conflict of Interest Act means something, because in the hands of the Prime Minister is the ability to punish for the breach.

However, here we have a situation where the Prime Minister is receiving a report about himself. I do not think the drafters assumed that the first person to breach these parts of the act would be the Prime Minister of Canada. One curious measure that seems to have been forgotten is that there are sections of the act where one can receive an administrative penalty, but they are clearly defined. It is very clear that these two parts of the act have not been included. The reasons are that the people who came before us probably thought that putting it in the hands of the Prime Minister would be best. As a result, there is no penalty for a breach of this part of the act.

What we seek is to provide a framework, so that if the breach of the act ends up with taxpayers footing the bill for something tangential to the receipt of this gift illegally, then they do not have to pay for it. That makes absolute sense. It is something, as lawmakers, that we should consider. We need to have a framework. It is incredibly important.

At the end of the day, this motion is about responsibility, accountability, and integrity. It is about the integrity of every member in this place. Let us be very clear. What we are talking about today is implementing one rule to govern us all. Remember what I said. In this set of circumstances, it is the Prime Minister who will always have the ability to adjudicate and determine the appropriate level of punishment for breach of the Conflict of Interest Act for the receipt of gifts. It is he who decides what will happen. In this case, he decided that an apology was sufficient. We disagree on this side of the House. Apologies are not sufficient, especially when we know that this trip cost at least $200,000.

There is one other matter I would like to bring up. If the other side wants to tell me they are working with the Ethics Commissioner on recommendations, they are doing an absolutely terrible job. In both the Conflict of Interest Act and the code of conduct, it is very clear that gifts must be reported, registered in the public registry, and notice given to the Ethics Commissioner. As I researched last evening, I discovered that the current Minister of Veterans Affairs has not reported this trip, either as a gift, which the Ethics Commissioner has indicated is the case, or as sponsored travel. There is no excuse for not updating this public registry. There is no reason that this did not happen, except there is one rule for these guys and one rule for the rest of us.

As well, the Prime Minister has not updated his public registry to include the fact that he received a gift. Now, we had to wait a year for the Ethics Commissioner to determine it was a gift, because he said it was a friend. However, it does not matter if it is a friend or not; it is a gift. He has abdicated his responsibility, again, to update the registry, so who is going to punish him for that? Who is going to have the last say on whether they are going to uphold it? This is a farce. The Liberals say that they care about ethics, transparency, and accountability. Given the first opportunity, not only does the Prime Minister breach this act knowingly and in full contemplation of the problems associated with it, but he decides there is no punishment. Then he scoffs the regulations by not even doing the simple motion of filling out a piece of paper and sending it to the Ethics Commissioner, so all Canadians know on the public registry who is taking gifts from lobbyists and who is not. That is a shame, and it should be corrected today.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we can see, the Conservatives have focused on the Prime Minister. Virtually since day one, they have had a very strong negative attitude. Whatever opportunity they get, they will take shots at the sitting Prime Minister. It does not matter what he does.

Canadians have more confidence and faith in the independent Office of the Ethics Commissioner. We should look at what Mary Dawson said. She is not affiliated with a political party. It is important for us to recognize that the Prime Minister met with the commissioner and worked in full co-operation with her. When the commissioner's report came out, there was a positive response from the Prime Minister. Since then, he has toured the country and held town halls, meeting with thousands of Canadians, providing the opportunity to have that engagement. What is important to recognize is that we are in compliance and working with the commissioner's office to ensure that this sort of thing does not take place in the future. The Prime Minister will do such things, before he takes his holidays in the future, as sharing that information with the commissioner.

I am wondering why, and maybe the member across the way could explain, the Conservatives do not have that sense of confidence and trust in the commissioner's office and the findings the commissioner has made. Why do they want to continue going down this road when what we should be looking at is what is important to Canadians? This is what we have been hearing time and time again.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have decided that they are going to say we are picking on the poor Prime Minister. When I mentioned that he has not had the decency to update his own registry on public disclosure, declaration of gifts or other advantages, let me tell members some of what he declared. Obviously he knows that there is a process, but he has not done it, which speaks to me of the fact that the Liberals do not care about the Conflict of Interest Act and the code of conduct. He received a Huawei Mate10 Pro android phone from His Excellency Li Keqiang, the Premier of the State Council of the People's Republic of China. He received a Karalux 24 karat gold-plated vase, this time from the chairman of Ho Chi Minh City People's Committee. He also received a framed felting piece entitled See You in the Future, by artist Tonya Corkey in Toronto. He also received a gourmet gift chest from Baskits, Ottawa.

Those are all very interesting. However, here is the point. Where is the free helicopter ride? Where are the free accommodations? Where is anything in here regarding the Aga Khan? When we google it or do the search on the registry, it is not there.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, this is more of a comment than a question. I heard the member opposite reference her time at the Toronto port authority and having an ethical conduct and review of law experience at that institution. I remind the member opposite that when she was there, no annual general meetings were held as required by the legislation, and a flight manifest for the MFP inquiry disappeared. We did not know how one of the largest corruption scandals in the history of the City of Toronto went down because it did not keep the records. I would also remind her that while she was a candidate for Parliament, she used government offices to fax out her fundraising requests.

I would also remind the member opposite that one member of the cabinet's fundraising chief and another member's effective campaign manager were appointed to the board. While both of these folks were kicking back salaries that they earned from the port authority to the Conservative Party, an issue I raised in the previous Parliament, the member opposite sat completely silent. If she is going to school us on ethics, she might want to review her behaviour at the Toronto port authority and understand that was unethical as well.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, welcome to a disagreement that has been going on for at least the 15 years we have had in the House of Commons.

First, with respect to annual general meetings, I invite the hon. member to take a look at the records of the Toronto port authority, wherein he will discover that, by law, an annual general meeting was held every year.

Second, with respect to my ethics reviews, yes, I have had a number of Ethics Commissioner investigations. However, I was not found to have been in breach. That was the Prime Minister.

Third, on the topic of appointments to boards, the member is not going to stand here in this House and dare to tell us that no Liberals are being appointed to any of these boards.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for St. Catharines.

It is always an honour and a privilege for me to rise in the House to tell Canadians about the remarkable work being done by our government under the leadership of our right hon. Prime Minister. That same Prime Minister took responsibility for his actions and accepted the findings of the former commissioner as soon as her report was released.

Our government respects the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the work of all officers of Parliament. Canadians expect all members to work with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, which is what the Prime Minister did. Immediately after the commissioner's report was released, the Prime Minister accepted the findings and took responsibility.

That is exactly what Canadians expect: a sense of responsibility and transparency that shows that we trust Canadians and we respect the work of officers of Parliament. Our trust in Canadians is precisely why they in turn trust us to put in place our economic plan to support the middle class and those working hard to join it.

This plan is working. Because Canadians trust us and are working hard, 422,000 jobs were created in 2017. This is the largest number of jobs created in a single year in more than a decade. The last time we saw such numbers was under another Liberal government. However, we would never have been able to do this without the trust of Canadians. They can have confidence in us and our democratic institutions thanks to the work of our officers of Parliament, like the former commissioner. We thank her for her work.

We will continue to work with the new commissioner. With respect to the Prime Minister's family and personal vacations, the commissioner will ensure that such trips are cleared by the commissioner's office. We are also determined to continue ensuring that officers of Parliament get the support they need and remain independent.

The motion moved by my colleague in the opposition addresses, in my opinion, an important notion that my Conservative colleagues too often ignored when they were in power: the Canadian taxpayer. As we all know, all prime ministers incur security costs. The security agencies are the ones that determine what is needed to keep the Prime Minister safe, and their recommendations are followed. The former commissioner herself acknowledged that costs are always incurred when the Prime Minister travels.

On the topic of using taxpayer dollars, the Conservatives should be a little more humble. We all remember the television ads that the Conservatives bought with public funds to announce programs that did not even exist yet, and the billboards that got as much attention from the Conservatives as the construction projects themselves.

Our government is listening and is acting in the best interests of taxpayers and all Canadians. This is reflected in all the policies we have brought forward over the past two years. As soon as we took office, we clearly said that the economy needs to work for the middle class and those working hard to join it. This is and always has been a must, on this side of the House.

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. As a reminder, the Canada child benefit is a tax-free monthly payment to eligible families to help support their children under 18 years of age. Families can then use this extra money to enroll their children in day camp, put food on the table, or buy warm winter clothing. That is called working for the future and helping taxpayers. By contrast, the Conservatives paid benefits to the children of millionaires.

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 current dollars, this represents an increase of almost $7,000 for a maximum benefit of approximately $20,000. With similar improvements made by the Quebec government to the Quebec pension plan, Canadians across the country can now aspire to a more dignified and secure retirement. These are just a few simple examples of the investments we have made for the benefit of the middle class and all taxpayers.

Of course, my colleagues opposite would rather ignore those results and the commissioner's findings. Indeed, the opposition has been asking for weeks and months that the report be tabled. Now that this has been done, it is refusing to accept its findings. It is not surprising. We are talking about a party that has spent years attacking all those who did not follow the leader's directive to a T, be they backbenchers, experts in every field, officers of Parliament or judges from across the country. If the party line was not toed 100%, the Conservatives launched all-out attacks. They were willing to make personal attacks and go after extremely honest people. It did not matter to the Conservatives, as long as they were on the attack.

Very little has changed since. Today, the Conservatives continue to do the same thing in the opposition, but everyone has gotten used to that. Their behaviour is so similar that it is as if Stephen Harper were still their leader.

Meanwhile, on this side of the House, we will continue to work in the same spirit of openness and transparency that has guided us since our election. The Prime Minister will continue to listen to Canadians and respond to their questions and concerns.