Debates of Feb. 6th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Conflicts of Interest

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

Sure, Mr. Speaker, maybe they are Facebook friends. Maybe what we lack is a definition.

This speaks volumes about the arrogance of the Liberals and the Prime Minister. Once again, he gives the impression that he thinks he is above the law, that this is of no concern to him, and that it is normal, in his universe, to accept such gifts and invitations. He talks a lot about the middle class, but he has never been part of it. He has no idea what the middle class is.

Most of our constituents would not think it is normal for a billionaire to offer them a free trip to his private island. That may be part of the everyday lives of the rich and famous, but unfortunately for the Prime Minister, it ended up being more of a Gilligan's Island for him.

When journalists and opposition parties started asking questions, we really did not know what the Prime Minister's agenda was. He did not explain where he had been or why right away. The Liberals tried to bury and cover up this whole affair, knowing very well that it would not go over well with Canadians.

When the government was forced to admit that the Prime Minister had received a gift in the form of the trip in question, the excuse was that it was a family vacation and that the Prime Minister had the right to take family vacations like anyone else. That makes sense. Most ministers and members of the House also vacation with their children and spouse. That is fine.

However, an interesting little detail was left out. In fact, this family trip was spent in the company of an MP from the Liberal Party of Canada and the president of the Liberal Party of Canada. I have to say that, as much as I like my colleagues, I am not going to bring the hon. member for Essex or the president of the NDP with me on my family vacations. That is family time.

We then learned that he had accepted to travel on his billionaire friend's private helicopter. Guess what? That is against the rules. Ministers and prime ministers are not allowed to do that especially when there are other, more conventional means of getting to the island.

The funny thing is that, at a certain point, the contention was that the only way to get to the island was by private helicopter, but a technician accompanying the Prime Minister travelled aboard a regular airplane. They could not get their story straight there, either.

It is a rare occurrence in family vacations that the host has business and government relations with the state his guest represents.

In light of all the secrecy, half-truths and all-out illegal acts, the Ethics Commissioner conducted an investigation and, for the first time in the history of Canada, a sitting Prime Minister was found guilty of contravening the Conflict of Interest Act, not only once, but four times. Sections 5, 11, 12 and 21 of the Conflict of Interest Act were violated. This is of great concern.

The Prime Minister also seems to think that apologizing, saying sorry and promising not to do it again should be the end of it. The fact is that people see a lack of judgment on the Prime Minister’s part, a disregard for his promise to do politics differently and not to place himself in conflicts of interest.

I agree that the Prime Minister should reimburse Canadian taxpayers for what he owes them. We in the NDP want to take it one step further because, without changes to the law, this type of behaviour could repeat itself. There must be more serious consequences than the small slap on the wrist we saw. We in the NDP believe that, when an investigation reveals that any section of the act has been violated, the commissioner should have the authority to impose financial penalties. The penalty could be a fine, dismissal or suspension.

We should start by taking the problem seriously. Legislative changes should be proposed to ensure that the consequences of such contraventions of the Conflict of Interest Act consist of more than a minor moral or public sanction. We should reinforce the commissioner’s investigative powers and allow him or her to impose fines and financial or economic sanctions. The Prime Minister would have deserved no less in the case at hand.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggested that monies be paid back. I was wondering if he could speak to the $122,000 that the hon. member owes. The Prime Minister took immediate responsibility, listened to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and abided by all of her recommendations. Could the member talk about the status of the money he owes?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question, even though he is trying to derail the debate and the discussion. When a committee comprised of mostly Liberal and Conservative members comes to a decision and gangs up on the NDP to make it look bad, most people come to realize that it is nothing more than political posturing and that it has nothing to do with the law having been broken. No independent investigation has been conducted in this matter. I can assure my colleague right now that I am not at all concerned.

However, I would like to know if he wants to strengthen the Conflict of Interest Act in order to avoid his Prime Minister landing in hot water, as he has been these last few months. Does he agree that the commissioner should have the power to impose real fines and other sanctions and that the public should be able to lodge complaints directly with him? Does he agree that the post-employment rules should be tightened, that the threshold for reporting donations should be reduced, and that the definition of public office holder should be extended to include the appointment of other individuals? These are practical solutions that the NDP is proposing in order to restore Canadians’ confidence.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the Prime Minister has no intention of paying the money back. If other members of Parliament fall into a similar role where they have misspent taxpayers' money, has a precedent now been set that, because the Prime Minister has no intention of paying it back, no one can?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I understand the point he is making given the circumstances. A bad example has been set by the highest official in the House. The Prime Minister himself broke the law and washed his hands of it. He does not want to change the law to give it more teeth and the commissioner more powers. Furthermore, he is showing contempt for taxpayers by refusing to do his part even though he could do so.

The NDP is concerned that the Prime Minister broke the law. We would also like to see more substantial legislative changes to prevent this from happening in the future, whether it involves ministers, the prime minister, or any member of the House, in order to restore confidence in our institutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, would it have been helpful for the commissioner to have had the authority to require the direct repayment of the expenses and to levy fines in the case of an inappropriate or illegal act?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that having fines for illegal actions is common sense. Furthermore, it would be appropriate to reimburse taxpayers who were cheated because of the Prime Minister's poor judgment and the decision he made. In fact, this dovetails nicely with what I said before. It would prevent this type of totally inappropriate and arrogant incident from happening again.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We have enough time for a 30-second question. The hon. member for Montcalm has the floor.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in thirty seconds, I will say that the Bloc Québécois fully supports amending the Conflict of Interest Act because what the Liberal MPs have been telling us today is that every member of the House can violate the Conflict of Interest Act at least once without any consequences.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Montcalm for his comment. I would like to remind members that, when it comes to conflicts of interest, the Minister of Finance was also caught red-handed because he forgot to disclose that he owns a villa in France. That is not something that would happen to most people. The finance minister is also under investigation for a potential conflict of interest surrounding Bill C-27, which is a direct attack on defined benefit pension plans. Let us not forget that the finance minister's own company manages pension plans. I look forward to seeing the end of this investigation into this other Liberal scandal.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore, Taxation; the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Indigenous Affairs; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Status of Women.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP supports this motion, but we have to understand that this motion needs to be more than just a political stunt. There actually needs to be some change that happens in this House when we guide ourselves.

I definitely agree that the Prime Minister's violation of the Conflict of Interest Act is unacceptable, but this has to be more than just an attempt to have the Prime Minister pay back the money. It needs to go further. It needs to reach further to make sure that we are implementing some changes for every member who sits in this House today.

The Conservative motion would impose this penalty on the specific case of the Prime Minister, but it would still leave the actual statutory penalties of the Conflict of Interest Act completely ineffective. New Democrats believe that if a motion or a bill is brought into the House or committee, there should be substantial ideas and reforms that would improve the institutions in which we work and which we all abide by.

When the Liberals were elected in 2015, they came in with their sunny ways. Their Prime Minister clearly put forward “Open and Accountable Government 2015”, a guide which sets out core principles regarding the rules and responsibilities of ministers in Canada's system of responsible parliamentary government. I have to say that Canadians were hopeful when they saw this document. They felt this was a signal that things were going to be different, and yet here we are, more than two years later, and Canadians who were hopeful have been seriously let down by the Liberal government.

The principle that was put forward states that public officeholders have an obligation to perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law. Those were some really lofty words that sounded incredibly hopeful, that sounded like there was going to be a change inside of government, inside this House. Sadly, it is not binding. Clearly, it is not of interest to the Prime Minister himself or to his fellow cabinet ministers, like the Minister of Finance. I am going to talk a little about the Minister of Finance.

The non-recusal of the Minister of Finance from consideration of Bill C-27 may not be seen as a problem for the government, but it is a huge conflict for Canadians. In particular, pensioners are very worried.

People and retirees in my riding have contacted me because they are worried about the changes to their pension plans. It is important to note that for working people, which I was before I came to this chamber, pensions are deferred wages. Pensions are not something that a company just gives people to hopefully live their retirement life in dignity. People contribute to their own pension, based on every hour that they have worked in the workplace, through an agreement with their employer. People work their entire lives for these pensions and they count on them to support them in their later years.

Now we have Bill C-27 which threatens public pensions. We know that when it starts with public pensions, it will soon move over to private pensions. Certainly the finance minister stands to benefit from this, from Morneau Shepell and its involvement in all of these pension plans. We have seen this play out unfortunately with Sears workers in our country right now.

There are many dangers to Bill C-27. This shamefully removes the legal obligation, allowing for the conversion of defined benefit plans to targeted benefit plans, which could potentially lower benefits for both current and future retirees.

I want everyone in this House to think for a moment that if they retire, if they have worked 30 years at a workplace and then retire, knowing that they are going to receive a set amount every month, their decision to retire will actually hinge on whether or not they can afford to live on that amount per month.

For people who are already retired, they could now be contacted by those running the pension plan for the company which they previously worked for and could be told that the amount of the pension is going to be reduced because the company is not doing as well as it had hoped. Essentially seniors could be put in precarious situations after the implementation of Bill C-27.

Our pension legislation in Canada is designed to protect plan members from employers simply abandoning their commitments to them after years of hard work and walking away from their pension obligations. In Bill C-27, the government is proposing to withdraw that legal protection, leaving employees at the mercy of employers who now want to back out of those pension commitments that they made to the workers years and years ago.

This is an attack on the retirement security of all workers and retirees and could undermine the stability of workplace relations and fuel labour disputes in our country. This is very serious, and our Prime Minister and finance minister have shown absolutely no remorse. Our finance minister is quite content to leave Bill C-27 sitting on the table as a constant threat and reminder to working people in our country that they could lose their retirement as they see it right now. This is not a government that is standing up for working people.

The NDP stands up for retirees and working people and has legislation on the table right now to protect workers in insolvency. However, we will not stop until Bill C-27 is removed from the House. It is not good enough to let it sit and languish. I get that it is good enough for the finance minister, because he stands to personally gain from the bill, and, as has been mentioned in the House many times, has potentially already gained from Bill C-27.

This is very serious. Our Prime Minister and our finance minister cannot see past their own privilege. I see that disconnect daily in the House. It is something that is palpable here. When the Prime Minister is speaking about working people and the middle class, it is very clear to me that he does not know anyone, or have someone in his family, who is a member of the working class, the middle class, people who are out there working hard every day and struggling.

I am not surprised that this level of disconnect has led to this type of motion today where there is an attempt to force the Prime Minister to do the right thing. The Prime Minister himself sees nothing wrong with private vacations on islands, and the finance minister sees nothing wrong with legislation that could potentially benefit his family business. This is a very serious problem.

They cannot seem to recognize the wealth they have, and they are using it as an excuse for this ethical breach. To say, as my colleague referred to earlier, that they are friends with someone they have seen twice in the last 15 years, so of course they accepted a private invitation to their island made me laugh. We do not typically bring everyone along with us on a vacation that we are being gifted from someone. For those of us who travel with our families, we are often all together in one small room, and we certainly would not invite another member of Parliament and their spouse. We would not invite the leader of our party. It is simply not feasible. However, to the Prime Minister, this seems as though it was nothing and he had done nothing wrong. That is the root of why we are discussing this here today.

There are some things that the New Democrats feel strongly we could do that would help to end this kind of abuse of privilege. The NDP is the only party in the House that is talking about real substantial reforms. If we are going to make some real advancements, we need to reform the act and give it teeth. We believe that the commissioner should be empowered to impose a penalty where an examination results in the finding of a contravention of any part of the act, which could include financial penalties, removal from a position, suspension from voting on issues for 30 days, or permanent recusal on specific issues.

The other thing is that we think the commissioner needs the power to give real fines and other punishments, including suspension. This is to allow the public to complain to the commissioner, to tighten the post-employment rules, reduce the gift disclosure threshold, and expand the definition of the public office holder to include Governor in Council appointments. To submit indirectly held assets to the same rules and scrutiny as directly held assets is among some of the reforms that the New Democrats are bringing forward today in the House.

We believe that the PM could easily pay this amount. Why he has chosen not to is beyond me. He certainly has the kind of money to be able to reach into his pocket, pull it out, and make sure he is returning the money to taxpayers. However, what we see, unfortunately, is a theme, and it is continuing on from previous Liberal and Conservative governments. It is that these scandals and ethical breaches are accepted.

We have the first sitting prime minister to be in violation of this statute, and I can promise that Canadians across the country are talking about this issue. They are saying that the Prime Minister is completely out of touch with Canadians, and they are looking to those in the House to hold him to account.

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

Mr. Speaker, in putting down the Prime Minister, the member built herself up as a member of the working class, which is impressive, making $180,000 per year.

That being said, I am wondering if the hon. member could comment on the fact that the former conflict of interest and ethics commissioner was specifically asked if she saw the need for greater penalties in the legislation, and she said no. Why do New Democrats know better than Mary Dawson?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I was not putting down the Prime Minister; I was simply pointing out my observation, and the observation of Canadians of the Prime Minister. Having worked for 20 years in an auto manufacturing plant, building F-150 and Mustang engines for Ford Motor Company, I am a working-class person. However, I recognize the privilege I have standing in this House today, and I bring my voice because I have been elected to do so. I bring that voice to bring the experience of Canadians and what I am hearing in my riding of Essex, something I am boggled that the member opposite is not hearing in his riding. Canadians are tired of the sense of entitlement and of one set of rules for the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister and another set for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for great recommendations about what we might do. I want to ask her what she thinks of the fact that the former minister of health, when caught doing something against the rules, paid back the money in an appropriate way. The minister of indigenous affairs in the north did the same. It seems like the women in the Liberal Party have a certain standard and that apparently the Prime Minister is not held to the same standard. Where is the gender parity there?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is entirely feminist of our Prime Minister to have women pay back amounts they have been found to have taken when he will not do the same. As I mentioned earlier, we know that the Prime Minister comes from extreme wealth, with a trust fund and family money. The member opposite mentioned the amount of money that MPs make in this House. I would like to point out that the Prime Minister makes double the amount that MPs make. That is all posted publicly, for those who would like to see.

The question is why the Prime Minister will not simply pay this back. I have had this conversation with my colleagues and with constituents, and it seems as though the Prime Minister has dug in his heels. At this point, he will not backtrack and admit he has made a mistake, that he should pay back the money and be accountable to Canadians.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are saying that we need to respect the institution, as though the Conflict of Interest Act is not part of the institution and as though violating that act is not an attack on the institution.

The Liberals are trying to derail the debate on the Prime Minister's supposed lack of judgment in accepting the vacations. In fact, they are telling us that voters are not interested in this issue or that they are interested in other things.

I think that is unacceptable coming from a government that claimed to want to do politics differently. Voters are cynical about the institution, Parliament, and all elected officials because they think that, once people get elected, they no longer respect the institution and, by extension, they no longer respect Canadians. That is exactly what the Prime Minister did.

Before we even get into talking about consequences or restitution, it is important to note that he demonstrated a lack of judgment unworthy of his position. Would he ever have told us during the election in a leadership debate that, if he ever violated the Conflict of Interest Act, all he would do is apologize and and we would move on to something else? How can my colleague explain the Prime Minister's lack of judgment?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is part of the broader issue. I have sat as an MP for just over two years. I understand that this is unacceptable and not something we are able to do, because I understand the rules. The Prime Minister has sat as a member in this House for quite some time, and he certainly should have known better. The fact that he accepted this begs the question about how well he understands the rules that govern us here. Unfortunately, I do not believe this will be the last time we find ourselves discussing the actions of the Prime Minister, because clearly his judgment is skewed when it comes to ethics.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Lethbridge.

This is a difficult subject to speak about. We are spending the day talking about something that strikes at the very heart of Canadian values, of ethics, integrity, and accountability.

I will say right off that I am not a big fan of the Prime Minister. I am not a big fan of his policies. I am not a big fan of the debt and deficit, and all of the other things that go on. I certainly do not want to make this personal, but this strikes again at the heart of the Prime Minister's ethical standards, and the ethical standards of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Just over a year ago, the Prime Minister accepted a trip to the Aga Khan's island, and it was kept secret. Nobody knew about it except an inner circle within the Prime Minister's Office, and, as we found out later, some within the Privy Council Office, that this trip was being planned. It was not a trip that one could find on Expedia. It was not a trip that the Trivago guy could help one find for cheap. This was a trip to a registered lobbyist's island.

We have heard throughout the day some of my colleagues talk about the Aga Khan and the good work he does, and this is not to impugn him, his name, or his organization. It was the Prime Minister who put the Aga Khan in this position.

Why was the trip kept secret? It was because the Prime Minister knew it was wrong. Those around him in the Prime Minister's Office knew it was wrong, and those within the Privy Council knew it was wrong, but he did it anyway. He went on that trip. The challenge we have before us today is that we are going to spend a whole day talking about this, something that should never have happened.

This is a hallowed place. It is a place that I certainly revere for its history and for those who have come before us. However, I think most of us can agree, in any other workplace if this situation were to happen, the prime minister in that case would have been fired from his job. This would have been a fireable offence. However, we cannot fire the Prime Minister, as only the Canadian electorate can do that. What do we do as an opposition? What we do as a third party? We hold the government to account.

This is a government that ran on an issue of real change. The Liberals said they were going to be more accountable. They said they were going to be transparent. They said they were going to be different. Yet, we have a Prime Minister who clearly broke federal ethics laws within the first year of being in office. Why? It is because of the sense of entitlement that he has. It is the fact that he thinks he is better than everyone else in this place, and better than any other Canadian in this country. He feels that he can go around like the king of Canada and accept all of these things. How is this any different from accepting a brown envelope with $200,000?

I will remind members again that the Aga Khan is a registered lobbyist. If any other member of this place accepted what the Prime Minister accepted, we would be held to the same account, but he did not take responsibility. In spite of what government members are saying, that he has accepted responsibility, we have not heard any acceptance of responsibility because he does not think he did anything wrong. If that were the case and he thought he did anything wrong, he would pay the $200,000 that this trip cost back to taxpayers because he was found guilty.

I have listened to the debate today and Liberals talked about security costs. Nobody is questioning the extent of security that the Prime Minister requires when travelling on business. Nobody is questioning that. What Conservatives are questioning is the fact that the Prime Minister accepted an illegal trip that he ought to have known not to take. That is what cost taxpayers money and that is what we are asking be paid back.

There is a clear distinction between what his official duties are as Prime Minister and what the security requirements are as Prime Minister as opposed to accepting an illegal trip that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner found to be illegal. It was not the opposition party that found that. It was not the third party. It was an independent officer of Parliament. That is why this is so important. If it were any other Canadian in any other place, workplace or otherwise, the expectation would be that he or she would pay this back. I do not think it is too much to ask of the Prime Minister to do that.

I say again that this is about not only respecting the institution of Parliament but respecting Canadians. Liberals were the ones who said they were going to do things differently, so I do not think it is too much to ask, as a member of the opposition, for the Prime Minister to pay that money back.

After the Ethics Commissioner found, back in December, just before Christmas, that the Prime Minister was in violation of four federal ethics laws, over the course of the next month and a half the opposition did not have an opportunity to question the Prime Minister. Since the House resumed, we have spent the majority of time in question period asking the Prime Minister, on behalf of Canadians, why he did it and why he is not paying the money back.

We have heard the same tired lines over and over again, that they accept responsibility and that they are going to follow the recommendations of the Ethics Commissioner. They were not recommendations. They were findings of guilt, and as a result of the findings of guilt, we, as the opposition, are asking the Prime Minister to pay that money back. Why is the Prime Minister not doing it? It would absolutely be the right thing to do. The Ethics Commissioner has no mandate to issue any fine or require the Prime Minister to pay the money back. Therefore, Conservatives are saying that it is up to the Prime Minister to pay that money back. It is his obligation to pay that money back.

The Ethics Commissioner also talked about the relationship with the Aga Khan and the fact that this relationship had not been renewed in 30 years. The Prime Minister stated that he was a friend of the family. Clearly, the Ethics Commissioner found that not to be true. There are a couple of members on the other side who I went to high school with, the science minister and the member for New Brunswick Southwest, and I would hardly classify them as friends. They are acquaintances from high school. It does not mean that I would use that as an example of friendship. I had not seen them in 30 years, until we were elected to this place. The same holds true for the Prime Minister with respect to the Aga Khan.

There are multitudes of problems with this issue and all we are asking, as the opposition, is that those findings be dealt with with integrity and accountability, the very things the Prime Minister and the Liberal government ran on, and to step up and pay taxpayers back for this illegal trip. I do not think that is an unreasonable request. That request is quite appropriate under these circumstances. We are asking the Prime Minister to step up, make amends for the findings of the Ethics Commissioner, the fact that he was found to have taken an illegal trip, have some integrity, and pay that money back.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the former conflict of interest and ethics commissioner was asked whether more stringent penalties should be imposed, she said, “I'm not of the view that more stringent penalties are required.” It seems that the NDP and the Conservatives purport to have respect for the integrity commissioner except for the recommendations that she requires.

I have previously asked my question of a few members and no one has answered it. Could the hon. member point to the time when Peter MacKay was caught taking a military helicopter to a private fishing lodge at a cost of $32,000 per hour?

[An hon. member]

A search and rescue helicopter.

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was a search and rescue helicopter. Could the member point to the time when he condemned that and called it out and demanded that Peter MacKay pay that money back?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

They are going down the rabbit hole again, Mr. Speaker. I have heard that all day.

I guess the member was not listening to my speech. The Prime Minister during the last election offered real change, offered to be better, offered better accountability, better transparency, and better integrity.

He is the first Prime Minister in the history of this country to be found guilty of ethics violations. Every member in this place understands their obligation when it comes to following the ethics rules and guidelines set out by the Ethics Commissioner and by Parliament. We follow those rules. The Prime Minister should have known better.

The member for St. Catharines should be asking these questions of his Prime Minister. Why did he do this? Why did he embarrass us? Why did he embarrass Canadians? Why was he the first Prime Minister in the history of this country to be found guilty? The member for St. Catharines should be asking his Prime Minister to pay the money back.

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

Mr. Speaker, I, like the member for Essex, have been in the House for two years. When I heard of this incident I immediately knew that we cannot accept travel over $200 and that we cannot accept anything from a lobbyist. It is clear that the Prime Minister should have known better and he had a total lack of judgment.

It is even worse than that, because we do not just get up one day and zoom off in a helicopter to a private island. That means both Gerald Butts and Katie Telford had a total lack of judgment. That means the Minister of Veterans Affairs had a total lack of judgment.

Would the member not agree that there is a huge issue that is rife on the opposite side of the House?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague just hit the nail on the head. The Liberal government has this sense of entitlement and we saw it certainly in Ontario. A lot of what happened in Ontario has transferred here to Ottawa. I guess it speaks to the core issue that one should know better, but that internal constitution does not exist on the other side.

The Liberals cannot help themselves. The Prime Minister cannot help himself. Gerald Butts, Katie Telford, all of the Prime Minister's advisers cannot help themselves. A champagne and caviar lifestyle on the taxpayer dime is something they are becoming quickly accustomed to and this is why we must expose this by having days like this.

Hopefully, by the time the next election rolls around, Canadians will have realized that there is only one party that truly looks after Canadian taxpayers and that is our Conservative Party of Canada, led by our leader the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.