Debates of Feb. 6th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Conflict of Interest

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

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's remarks, but I soon realized that we are in for the same old Liberal lines again today.

There is one basic question we need to ask ourselves. The Prime Minister looks repentant on camera and says he takes full responsibility for what he did, but he does not have to face up to any consequences. Is that good enough for the people we represent?

Does my colleague see this as an ideal opportunity to overhaul or at least thoroughly review the Conflict of Interest Act?

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

Madam Speaker, I am very proud of the fact that the Prime Minister took responsibility for what happened. As soon as the commissioner's report was released, he accepted the findings and told Canadians he would do better next time. He said he would tell the commissioner about all future family and personal vacations. I believe he even took the opportunity to answer Canadians' questions on the subject at various town halls. The Prime Minister has taken responsibility and will continue to work with the new Ethics Commissioner. I believe the rules are in place and the commissioner will be able to do his work.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague said that the Prime Minister took responsibility. In good parenting, as in responsible government, there would be restitution if someone took responsibility for his or her an action. If a child took a toy from another child, we would say that it was wrong, that the child should not have done that. We would then tell that child to give the toy back. Children do not say that they have taken responsibility for it, but that they will keep the toy. That is not taking responsibility. It needs to include restitution of the wrong.

The Prime Minister often has said something with which I agree. Not only is it the right thing to do, to pay the money back, but it is the smart thing. Would the member agree that it is the smart thing to do?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is important to remember, as I mentioned in my speech earlier, that the Prime Minister has responded to the commissioner's findings. The commissioner was very clear when she said that he had contravened certain rules and that he must now work with the new commissioner and inform him of all future travel, which is what the Prime Minister will do. We have taken every step to ensure that all of the commissioner's findings and recommendations are followed, and that is already happening.

I hope that answers my hon. colleague's question.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my opinion, the problem with the previous question is that the Prime Minister does not get to choose how the RCMP decides to delegate that security. Those decisions are made by the RCMP and it does that at its own discretion. Therefore, the costs associated with it will be completely at the discretion of the RCMP.

My colleague spoke about openness and transparency, and I thought she really hit the nail on the head. Yesterday we were debating a bill about openness and transparency, which the Conservatives are against. Could she expand on the importance of that openness and transparency and what the Prime Minister is doing about it.

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

Madam Speaker, as I already said in my speech, of course our security agencies propose and implement solutions to protect the Prime Minister. The security agencies made recommendations, which were implemented.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion before us. I find it remarkable that the opposition decided to use one of its few supply days to debate this.

The object of today's motion is, of course, not to actually debate an issue that matters to Canadians, such as jobs, the economy, or immigration, but rather to attempt to keep alive an issue after it has been fully investigated and ruled on by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. The commissioner's findings have been accepted and procedures have been implemented to ensure future similar issues are avoided.

Today's topic leads me to believe that the opposition has no real argument against our plan to create jobs and grow the middle class.

We are putting in place measures to create opportunities for Canadians to better position Canada in the economy of tomorrow. I honestly expected the opposition to use this day to speak about the newest measure introduced by the leader of the opposition, which, true to the Harper Conservative way, is another boutique tax credit that will do little to help those who need it the most. Since the Conservatives know that their plan does not help those who are self-employed, those who do not qualify for employment insurance, or low-income earners across the country, their best hope is that as few people as possible notice what they have done.

For example, the Conservatives voted against the Canada child benefit, which helps nine out of 10 Canadian families, while introducing a plan that would do nothing for so many Canadians—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member well knows what the topic is. He has referenced it and then has used it as an opportunity to abridge to a different topic on the economy. We all support a strong economy, but relevance needs to be maintained.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member for Langley—Aldergrove that the member is just starting in his speech. I am sure he will get to the matter at hand. I also want to remind speakers that the subject is on the motion. There is some leeway in the debate, however, the points should be focused on the motion before the House.

The hon. member for St. Catharines.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives believed that personal attacks was the path to victory in the last election. Canadians did not buy it then and they will not buy it now.

The opposition knows that security agencies make determinations on what is needed to protect the Prime Minister, as they have done with previous prime ministers. We follow their recommendations. The Prime Minister also accepted full responsibility immediately after the report was made public. That is what Canadians expect of their leaders.

When this government was elected, we committed to honour the trust Canadians had given us. We committed to bring new leadership to the government, listening to the needs of Canadians and working collaboratively to tackle the real challenges we faced as a country. We have and continue to deliver on this commitment.

Instead of focusing on these real challenges, such as employment, affordable housing, or advancing equal rights, the opposition is using this day to debate a subject that has already been thoroughly examined by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Let us be clear about what is happening here. The opposition is trying to second guess the work of the commissioner.

On this side of the House, we respect the work that is done by officers of Parliament. When they make determinations, we accept them. When they make recommendations, we follow them. This is in stark contrast to what the Conservatives did during their 10 years in power.

The Conservatives went to court against the findings of the Chief Electoral Officer. They eliminated the position of chief science officer. They ignored everything the parliamentary budget officer said and attacked the credibility of the office. They even attacked the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, which is not fathomable to Canadians.

This is not what Canadians want, and not what Canadians deserve. The Conservatives seem to forget that their belief that they know better than the institutions of Parliament is part of the reason they are on that side of the House today.

We put forward a proposal that included respect for Parliament, including its officers. We put our trust in Canadians. We continue to focus on them, while the Conservatives are focused on us.

I am pleased to speak about the great efforts our government has made to increase transparency and accountability, as well as our strong commitment to an open and honest government that Canadians deserve. We are committed to maintaining the trust we have earned from Canadians.

When it comes to the costs mentioned by my hon. colleagues, the former commissioner herself acknowledges that these costs were incurred as part of the Prime Minister's travels. As we have often said, wherever and whenever the Prime Minister travels, there are security costs. This is not new. It was the case for previous prime ministers as well. We have been transparent about these costs.

We believe in the importance of openness and transparency, so much so that we introduced legislation to make political fundraising more open and transparent. The legislation would apply to fundraising events attended by the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers, party leaders, and leadership candidates. Shockingly, the Conservatives do not support the legislation. Why? Because it would apply to the leader of the Official Opposition.

By further opening the doors to participation in our political process and by ensuring that events are open and transparent, we believe public confidence in the system will be enhanced.

Moreover, it is exciting to hear that the Liberal party has voluntarily moved to introducing these changes on its own, and will develop an interim system of public reporting. These are real measures to improve public confidence in our democratic institutions. They show how our government is committed to being open and accountable and ensuring ministers discharge their duties with integrity and meet the fundamental principles of our system of a responsible government.

The Conservatives want transparency to apply to others and ask others to apply a higher standard. However, when it comes to themselves, suddenly there are numerous reasons why transparency would be a bad idea. Not that we are surprised; it is the Conservative way.

When we look at the commissioner's report, the Prime Minister accepted the findings and was already engaged with the office to clear all future family and personal vacations. The Conservative technique under Stephen Harper was to always question the work of officers of parliament, and we see it continue today.

We are committed to being a government that is accountable to Canadians and lives up to the highest ethical standards. A transparent government is a good government. It strengthens trust in our democracy and ensures the integrity of our public institutions. Canadians support the progress that we, as a government, have made so far in this area, and they expect us to continue. We must never cease to earn and keep their trust.

I would like to reiterate that our Prime Minister has said on numerous occasions that he welcomed the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's inquiry, and has taken all necessary steps to ensure that all and any future vacations of the Prime Minister will be vetted by the Ethics Commissioner prior to them taking place.

I am proud to be a part of a government that is committed to being open and transparent with all Canadians and conducts itself in an ethical manner.

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

Madam Speaker, I am a little puzzled. I need to dig into the issue a little more about how the government is open and transparent. The Prime Minister spent the whole year saying that he obeyed all the rules with respect to the conflict of interest laws. Now we find out that is not true. How is that open and transparent?

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

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister engaged with an officer of Parliament, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. The investigation took a period of time. The Prime Minister presented his belief of what happened. Others were asked for their evidence in that case. Then a finding of fact was made. Unlike previous prime ministers, the Prime Minister accepted responsibility. He apologized to Canadians and agreed to go forward on those recommendations without any concern. That is what Canadians expect from their leaders, that is what they expect from their Prime Minister, and that is what the Prime Minister did.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, that speech had such passion and conviction, and that is what the people from St. Catharines would expect.

The member started his comments by talking about the fact that the opposition was using this as its first opposition motion for 2018. It is another opportunity, like it continually does, to keep smearing the Prime Minister, throwing it against the wall, hoping it will stick. When the Liberal Party was in opposition, it talked about the bad policy the Conservatives brought forward, such as Bill C-51 and its attack on scientists.

Could the member expand a little more on why he thinks the Conservative Party continually hammers away at the Prime Minister instead of talking about some of the policies that can help the people they so often purport to represent?

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

Madam Speaker, it is not surprising that the Conservatives put forward this motion. When we bring forward good policy that helps Canadians, it is hard to attack that.

We do not have to look any further than the recent by-elections, which have shown that the Canadian people do not have trust in the Conservative Party. They elected Liberals in places that had not elected Liberals in decades.

We are working for Canadians. We are delivering real change and Canadians see that. While the Conservatives are focused on the Prime Minister and the Liberals, we are focused on Canadians, and it is shown at the ballot box.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently. The member said that what the Prime Minister did was ethical, yet the Ethics Commissioner said what the Prime Minister did was illegal. Compensation is a very important component of doing what is ethical. If someone does something wrong, he or she should make it right.

The motion today asks the Prime Minister to pay back money that was unethically used. There would not have been a cost for the RCMP if the trip had not happened. This unethical trip should not have happened and there would not have been a cost for security. The right thing to do, and the smart thing to do, would be to pay the money back.

Would the member not agree that this is the ethical thing to do?

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

Madam Speaker, I will direct my comments specifically to what the Ethics Commissioner said. When she was asked by the hon. member for Thornhill whether there should be more penalties, she said, “I’m not of the view...that more stringent penalties are required.” She went on to say that the Prime Minister was entitled to vacations and if he had gone somewhere else, the same cost would have been incurred.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lévis—Lotbinière.

I am pleased today to rise in support of the motion before the House. The motion, in essence, refers to four major elements of the Conflict of Interest Act regarding the acceptance of illegal gifts, furthering private interests, being in a conflict of interest, and accepting travel.

The motion asks that the House find that when any of those sections of the Conflict of Interest Act are broken, sections 11, 21, 5, and 12, and the conflict of interest code and costs to the taxpayer are incurred, the member responsible must repay those costs to the taxpayer.

Before I go any further, the House should recognize that today is an important anniversary. It is not necessarily an anniversary to be marked with candles, fizzy drinks, and from the heart out, rainbows and unicorns, but rather one that the Liberal government would rather see forgotten, a day of infamy for the Liberal government. Today is the first anniversary of the day, February 6, 2017, when the Ethics Commissioner informed the Prime Minister that he was being investigated.

Why was the Prime Minister of Canada being investigated? Because the Conservative member for Regina—Qu'Appelle had requested an inquiry under the code into an improper vacation taken by the Prime Minister and his family to the private island of His Highness the Aga Khan. The commissioner was also responding to a request by another Conservative member of the House, raising concerns that the Prime Minister may have contravened sections of the Conflict of Interest Act.

The Ethics Commissioner found both requests reasonable, and that led to the letter written 12 months ago, informing the Prime Minister of Canada that he was being investigated for wrongdoing.

The Ethics Commissioner also informed the Prime Minister, in that fateful letter, that she was extending him the courtesy of an initial interview before collecting additional information or documents from other parties, third parties.

It was a gracious offer, but did the Prime Minister take advantage of that offer? Did the Prime Minister fully co-operate, as he has claimed so many times over the past 12 months? No. The Prime Minister did not consider the Ethics Commissioner's investigation a priority matter. He did not make himself available to the Ethics Commissioner for a full two months.

The focus of the final report, the official title of which may not be spoken in the House by order of the Speaker, because it is in the Prime Minister's name, is the one improper, illegal Christmas vacation, December/January 2016. However, the commissioner's investigation also revealed that the Prime Minister and his family had accepted a vacation on the Aga Khan's island earlier, in December 2014, and that in March 2016, members of the Prime Minister's family, a friend, and the friend's children enjoyed a vacation on the Aga Khan's island, requested by the Prime Minister's wife.

On March 9, 2016, two days before the Prime Minister's wife took that vacation, a representative of the Aga Khan requested a formal, bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister, which, when held in May, 2016, discussed matters including a $15 million dollar Government of Canada grant for one of the Aga Khan's projects.

When the Prime Minister, or the Liberal House leader, recites his lines that he accepts the commissioner's findings, and I will get to those in a moment, he just dusts his hands, says he has apologized, and commits to seek advice on his holidays from the Ethics Commissioner from now on.

What he has not acknowledged is his testimony before the Ethics Commissioner and, just as important, her interpretation of that testimony regarding the May 17 meeting with the Aga Khan. The Ethics Commissioner reported that the Prime Minister, despite receiving gifts and hospitality from the Aga Khan, had no concerns about attending the high-level grant-seeking meeting with the Aga Khan.

The Prime Minister told the Ethics Commissioner that the meetings he attended as Prime Minister were not really business meetings, but rather “high-level” meetings centred on relationship building and ensuring that all parties were moving forward together, that he left the details of deals, deals involving millions of dollars of Canadian taxpayers, to others. He suggested that was the way he saw his role in any high-level meeting, ceremonial in nature.

That is why we on this side of the House want the Prime Minister to tell us just how many other times he has behaved similarly with big name lobbyists or other organizations seeking millions of dollars, or much more, of Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars.

In the end, 11 months after initiating an investigation of the Prime Minister, the commissioner released her report, titled in the Prime Minister's name, a week after the House rose just before Christmas. Commissioner Dawson found that the Prime Minister violated four major sections of the Conflict of Interest Act: 5, 11, 12, and 21.

Except for one clumsy scrum in the foyer of the House, the Prime Minister has not meaningfully discussed the report with members, either in question period or more appropriately with the ethics committee. He has refused an invitation to committee saying he would rather answer in town halls, but where again, he has not.

The Prime Minister has been found to have broken the law. The Prime Minister accepted an illegal gift. The Prime Minister should do the right thing to attempt to regain the public trust, to demonstrate his accountability not only to the act but to his own ethical guidelines.

That is why this motion is before the House. That is why I hope all members will support the motion and the principles of accountability and ethical behaviour that the Prime Minister has so cavalierly violated.

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

Madam Speaker, I know the member opposite has studied this issue and sat on the committee that took carriage of it, but one of the things that I found hardest to fully comprehend in the report was what constitutes the definition of a “friend”. The member opposite and I have known each other for a few years. I have to admit I have never been to his cottage or flown, if he has a helicopter, in his helicopter, but he donated to one of my early political campaigns. I have certainly met his spouse. He knew my father. We knew each other through professional ties. I think I have spent more time with him now in the House than I did over all those years when we shared that profession.

However, if I walked into a bar and he was watching the Leafs and cheering for the right team, the only blue team I cheer for, I might buy him a beer. Does that purchase of beer based on the definition of friendship constitute a gift, or because there is a lack of letter writing back and forth, because I do not know the exact relationship he had to my father, is that a friendship or should I no longer refer to him as a friend?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members they have an opportunity to get up for questions and comments. I would hope that they are going to allow people to have their time when they are being recognized to speak.

The hon. member for Thornhill.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure that if it ever came to the attention of the Ethics Commissioner, he or she would find that our friendship is in fact probably far deeper than that between the Aga Khan and the Prime Minister and she was very clear in the report that the friendship developed only when he became leader of the Liberal Party and Prime Minister of Canada with influence over grant approval to organizations like the Aga Khan's worthy foundation.

We know that the Prime Minister in the very first scrum outside the House with the media, again something I refer to as rather a bumbling, mumbling response to media questions, apologized but in the same sentence he quibbled with the Ethics Commissioner's finding with regard to friendship.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way has some problems with friendship and I am sure that is something he can address in other places.

Further to this question about friendship, and this was well established in questions that were asked to the Ethics Commissioner at the committee of which the member is a member, if the Prime Minister were actually friends with the Aga Khan, that would raise a whole host of different ethical questions. If one is a close friend of someone, then being involved in their applications for government funding, being involved in decision-making that would respect their interests and their relationship with the government, is a different set of ethical questions.

If the Prime Minister's plea is that, no, it is not one set of ethical problems that he walked into but a different set of ethical problems that he walked into, I might submit that it is a pretty weak defence of the legitimate charges that have been raised against him and I would be curious to hear my friend's comments.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question my hon. friend raised is exactly the sort of question that we would like to discuss with the Prime Minister, again in the serene and respectful surroundings of the ethics committee, where it is appropriate for members of the House who have been found guilty of violations of the Conflict of Interest Act and/or the code to explain themselves, to more fulsomely accept responsibility, and in the case of spending hundreds of thousands of Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars to support an illegal gift, to consider repaying that amount to Canadians.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, it is a privilege for me to take part in this debate. As my colleagues know, I am a tireless crusader when it comes to shedding light on the unethical behaviour of the Prime Minister and his ministers and the free passes they give themselves. This latest scandal, in a long line of many, simply proves once again that the old Liberal culture is alive and well within the party. I would remind the House that, if the member for Papineau had not become leader of the Liberal Party, the Aga Khan certainly would not have invited him, so as to strengthen his ties with a potential future influential leader of Canada. Indeed, I myself have never been invited by the Aga Khan, nor have most of my colleagues in the House.

It beggars belief to see this self-important dandy expecting us to foot the bill for his whims and those of his family while Canadians are working hard and paying taxes. These expenses are unjustifiable. A taxpayer-funded illegal trip does not fall within his duties as a statesman.

This whole thing started when the Prime Minister contacted the Aga Khan's daughter in mid-July 2016 to ask whether his family could spend their Christmas holidays in Bells Cay. The Prime Minister's Office confirmed with the Privy Council Office in early November 2016 that the Prime Minister's family would be staying in Bells Cay from December 26, 2016 to January 4, 2017. The Prime Minister said that the only way to get to the island from Nassau was by private helicopter. He and his family travelled that way during their trip to Bells Cay in December 2014. Surprise. Now, it appears there was a third trip.

For a March 2016 trip taken by the Prime Minister's wife, who was joined by her friend and their children, she contacted the Aga Khan's daughter in mid-February 2016 to discuss the possibility of staying on the island with her children in the months that followed. The Aga Khan's daughter told Mrs. Grégoire that they would be welcome to say on the island. On February 27, 2016, Mrs. Grégoire sent an email to her assistant in the Prime Minister's Office, as well as to the staff in Bells Cay about her trip to the island with a friend and their children, in order to ask that she arrange the helicopter ride to Bells Cay with the island's staff.

It is nevertheless exceptional to see that there was an invitation to travel. I did not misspeak when I called the Prime Minister self-important, since he believes he is exceptional. When the former ethics commissioner appeared before the committee on which I sit on January 10, I asked Ms. Dawson to explain to us why the circumstances of the Prime Minister's family's trip were deemed “exceptional” and why it should be paid by Canadian taxpayers. I wondered if that was the position argued by the Prime Minister's legal counsel. I will quote Ms. Dawson, who said:

As I indicated in the report, Mr. Trudeau said that all of his trips were exceptional. In a way, they are always exceptional, because there is always a lot of security involved and all that. My point here is that you cannot use the argument that all travel is exceptional to claim that the holidays in question were exceptional. The circumstances were known, it was well planned, they had taken the helicopter before...

On page 61 of her report, Ms. Dawson also notes the following:

There was nothing unusual, unforeseen or unavoidable about this trip. [The Prime Minister] was well aware, given his previous stay on the island in 2014, that private transportation was needed to reach the Aga Khan's private island. While it may have been typical for guests of the Aga Khan to use his helicopter to reach the island, [the Prime Minister] knew that travel by helicopter was not the only means of transportation to the island. Members of his family had previously travelled to the island on a seaplane chartered by the Aga Khan from a company in the Bahamas.

Therefore when [the Prime Minister] and his family were planning their stay at the Aga Khan's island during the summer and fall of 2016, it would have been possible for the Prime Minister and his family to have considered and arranged alternative means of transportation to the island, including by chartering their own aircraft. Any alternative arrangements would have been less convenient and more expensive than the helicopter, but, given the prohibition set out in section 12, other alternatives should have been pursued.

For these reasons, I cannot conclude that there were exceptional circumstances in this case.

On page 56 of the report, the commissioner wrote that preparations for the trip had started much earlier:

As well, in the case of the December 2016 trip, plans were initiated for the trip in the summer of 2016 and firmed up by the fall, and the travel itinerary for [the Prime Minister] and his family was being organized weeks in advance by [the Prime Minister's] ministerial staff and the RCMP.

It is clear from the evidence that there were other options available to transport the [Prime Minister's] family to Bells Cay. The RCMP, when first advised of the Prime Minister’s trip to the private island, began considering various travel options to reach the island, including by boat or by chartering a private aircraft. When the RCMP became aware that the Aga Khan’s helicopter would be available as an option, it was considered by the RCMP to be the best option, taking into account that it was direct and easy. The RCMP considered the helicopter to be secure given that it had frequently been used by other dignitaries travelling to the island.

Although it is understandable from a security and efficiency perspective why the Prime Minister and his family accepted the travel aboard the Aga Khan’s private helicopter to reach Bells Cay, I am of the view that the circumstances surrounding the acceptance of the private air travel were not exceptional.

I would like to come back to the March 2016 trip to Bells Cay. On page 58 of the report, the former commissioner writes:

The March 2016 trip taken by [the Prime Minister’s] family was obviously not required in relation to [the Prime Minister’s] official duties…As in the case of the December 2016 trip, [the Prime Minister] did not seek my prior approval in relation to this trip.

Like the December 2016 trip, there was nothing so unusual, unforeseen or unavoidable about the March 2016 trip that a finding of exceptional circumstances would be warranted.

...

For the reasons stated above, I find that [the Prime Minister] contravened section 12 of the Act when he and his family accepted travel on the Aga Khan’s helicopter in December 2016 and when his family accepted travel on the non-commercial chartered aircraft arranged by the Aga Khan in March 2016.

I would also like to read Ms. Dawson's observation:

In 2015, the Prime Minister issued a guidance document for ministers and ministerial exempt staff, entitled Open and Accountable Government. That document provides that Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must not accept travel on “non-commercial chartered or private aircraft for any purpose except in exceptional circumstances, and only with the prior approval of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and public disclosure of the use of such aircraft. Any hospitality accepted must strictly adhere to the requirements of the Conflict of Interest Act.”

Ms. Dawson also said:

The rule as expressed in the Prime Minister’s document requires that the public office holder must always consult with the Commissioner prior to accepting travel, when claiming exceptional circumstances. In this case, the Prime Minister did not follow his own rule.

She goes on to say:

As mentioned above, section 12 of the Act arose out of a concern over a series of instances where ministers accepted travel on private aircraft. The seeking of prior approval in such cases brings the matter to my Office’s attention. This approval has been sought by other public office holders and would normally be favourably met where practical reasons support such a prior approval....As well, seeking prior approval enables my Office to look at the situation more broadly and to consider whether other provisions of the Act should also be considered.

Here in the House, it is our duty to abide by the Conflict of Interest Act. Everyone must abide by it, even the Prime Minister himself. In light of the damning report of former ethics commissioner Dawson, we can unequivocally say that the Prime Minister deliberately tried to be exempt from a federal law.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments about this extremely important ethical issue that we are facing in the House. We know that the current government has said it wants to set the bar higher than ever before. My colleague was my seatmate before. I remember when we were first elected, we all sat down and were told the rules about what we could and could not do. Most members of the House do their best. When people make mistakes they pay back what is expected.

I think what is really bothering people about this situation is the Prime Minister's priorities. He was at a town hall, and a veteran came up to him and said he was prepared to give his life for the country and now the government was turning its back on veterans. The Prime Minister answered by saying, “Why are we still fighting certain veterans groups in court? Because they're asking for more than we are able to give right now.” That was the answer he gave, which is incredibly disturbing.

The Prime Minister took an illegal vacation, and he had money for that. What does he think he is doing by providing that example of behaviour especially toward our veterans?