Debates of April 17th, 2018

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's Report

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we have many reports on the Order Paper. If we wanted to, we could have one of those reports brought forward every day. Maybe the official opposition and the NDP would like to see that.

If it were up to those members, nothing would get through the House of Commons. They would rather debate a report. That is not to say this report is not important. The government has been acting on the issue of transparency and accountability.

At the end of the day, we should be debating the budget. Is that not an important debate? If it were up to the official opposition and the NDP, we would never debate it. They would continue to come up with ways to debate this report or that report. The number of reports we could be debating in the chamber is endless.

This report fits the narrative of the Conservatives, character assassination. The NDP have bought into it. When I talked about proactive disclosure, the member across the way was here. He was part of the New Democrats who said that they did not want proactive disclosure, not once, not twice but many times.

What I have said is consistent. The Prime Minister has been consistent since he became leader of the Liberal Party. He genuinely believes in transparency and accountability. However, he will not allow the tactics of the opposition to throw the government off course. We will continue to focus our attention on Canada's middle class, those aspiring to be a part of it, and those who are in need of government support. We see that in budget after budget, economic policy for our seniors, our kids, our working class, and individuals who need to get those tax breaks. Our focus will be on Canadians, not on the opposition.

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

Madam Speaker, I am always proud to rise in the House and represent the people of Timmins—James Bay. It is particularly interesting to rise now after listening to what could be called a political screed by my friend from Winnipeg.

When we talk about closing ethical loopholes, it always upsets Liberals. There is something about ethical breaches and Liberals that go hand in hand. It is about their idea of friendship.

The Aga Khan was a close personal friend of the Prime Minister, apparently, when the Prime Minister took his trip to billionaire island, yet he had not really seen him in 30 years. We were told it was just a friend.

Liberals said it is not fair for me to question a billionaire who pays the Prime Minister and some key politicians to come and hang out with him, paying their way while he is lobbying, because they are just friends. They said, “Don't you have friends who invite you to places?”

Yes, certainly. I am from northern Ontario. I get invited to fish huts all the time during the winter. For the price of a six-pack of Labatt's, I might get paid back in a little pickerel. That is not the same as Liberals who hang with billionaires who are lobbying the same government for favours.

I want to talk about this idea of friendship and the Liberals, because it is a fundamental question about ethics that they do not understand. The reason we have the Lobbying Act and the Conflict of Interest Act is so that friends do not have insider access.

The problem goes back to the pork-barrel days of the Liberals when it was about who you knew in the PMO. Buddy from the Liberal Party, tied to the Prime Minister, would step out and go into private practice. Then the would call up his friend in the Prime Minister's Office, and changes would be made.

We have realized that this is not ethical. What is ethical is that there has to be a standard for lobbying so that we know who is lobbying and why they are lobbying. A little transparency goes a long way.

The issue of closing an ethical loophole matters, because what we do in Parliament is about reassuring Canadians that they can trust us. They do not have to pay attention to all the details of the vote. In fact, there is not a single voter who would agree with every single thing we do as parliamentarians, because we are called upon to make decisions on all manner of issues. However, our voters should be able to trust that we are acting in the best interests of the Canadian people and that when we meet with large financial interests that are trying to influence government policy, it is being done in a transparent manner and for the benefit of Canadians.

This is why I want to get back to this notion of friends and Liberal friends. We have the situation of the Prime Minister, who flew to billionaire island and contravened numerous sections of the Conflict of Interest Act. It is actually unprecedented that a Prime Minister has been found guilty of breaching the Conflict of Interest Act for accepting gifts, for accepting favours, yet the Prime Minister did not think anything was wrong because he said the guy he had not seen in 30 years was a personal family friend. It is though they were above the law and it is very embarrassing.

I would chalk that up. I do not think there was malice on the part of the Prime Minister. My Conservative friends always think there was some kind of skulduggery; I do not. I think the Prime Minister thought, “He knew my dad and he is a billionaire; I like hanging out with billionaires, and I get a free trip to an island.” However, the Prime Minister needs to understand that he has to set a better example, because he promised a better example. He promised it in the 2015 election when he said it would not just be the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law. My God, how the Liberals have fallen since then.

The other guest who hung out on the beach on billionaire island, who is now the Veterans Affairs minister, did not even bother to report the trip. The Prime Minister did not report the gifts he received from the Aga Khan because he said that since they were inappropriate gifts, he did not need to say what they were.

Over the many years I have been here, I have heard all manner of hogswallop when it comes to defending abuse, but I have never heard someone use a loophole to say that since it was inappropriate, they were not obligated to say what it was, and therefore they were somehow protected. I want to know if the member who is now the Veterans Affairs minister used this same logic when he decided that just because he took a trip to billionaire island, he did not need to report it. In fact, we need to report everything we do to the Ethics Commissioner. It is up to the Ethics Commissioner to decide whether it is appropriate or not. It is not for the individual member to say, “Well, I accepted this free gift because, hey, it was a free gift, and it does not affect my political work.” Everything does. It is about accountability.

Speaking of friends of the Liberal Party, let us talk about Stephen Bronfman. This man is one of the most powerful men in Canada, and he is certainly a powerful Liberal fundraiser. In fact, he is so powerful that he raised $250,000 for the Liberal Party and his personal friend, the Prime Minister, in two hours. That is an amazing power.

The Prime Minister would say they are just friends, because the Prime Minister certainly loves hanging out with billionaires. The Prime Minister held a recent fundraiser with billionaires and the super-rich in Montreal, and he told us that the reason they were there was to get tough on the one per cent. Can members imagine that? Do they imagine that the reason that the billionaire class is paying money to the Liberal party is so that it can get tough on the one per cent? That is not how life works.

How it does work was shown when Stephen Bronfman was named in the paradise papers scandal, a scandal that identified powerful people around the world who were evading their tax responsibilities through tax havens. When Stephen Bronfman was one of the Canadians named, the Prime Minister immediately intervened and said that no investigation was necessary, and no investigation happened. That is the power of friends in the Prime Minister's Office.

It was also highly inappropriate, because it is not up to the Prime Minister of this country to decide in advance whether tax laws in this country are being broken or they are not just because someone is, first, his personal friend, and second, he raises money for the Liberal Party. That is not an ethical standard that we can trust, but it seems to work for the current government.

This issue needs to be called out.

In the recent debacle in India, the Prime Minister's trip seemed to be much more about trying to shore up domestic ridings to win than about international diplomacy, international security, or international credibility. We had the bizarre and unprecedented situation of a convicted terrorist getting on the all-access pass list because he was very powerful in local B.C. Liberal politics. We also have the case of the member for Brampton East who went on that trip. After he got elected, he went into business. For folks back home, it is very rare that someone decides to go into business after becoming an MP. For the few who do, there have to be clear laws in place so that they are not using their desk in Parliament to help their friends. However, the member for Brampton East, we are told, invited his business partner to have access to the Prime Minister and to key Liberal members and ministers on that India trip.

Does that pass the smell test? It certainly does not, and it raises a question about the lack of ethics and accountability in the Liberal caucus right now, since the Liberals seem to think that this is perfectly okay. In fact, we have heard from every senior voice in the Liberal government on these ethical breaches, and not once did they take these issues seriously. They seem to think it is okay because he is a good guy, the other guy is a good guy, and they are all friends. It is this culture of friends and using the position of power within politics to further the interests of friends that is wrong.

The issue before us today is about closing loopholes. I have spent many years on this file, and it always surprises me that even when we think we have done our best to make sure that people will follow the spirit of the law, there will be always those who try to find a way to slip around it.

As exhibit A, I present the finance minister. I have been told by the Liberals that I am completely out of line because this finance minister is virtuous, that people who are that rich who offer themselves to public service have to be somehow more virtuous by nature because they do not need to come to Ottawa. That is fair play, but the finance minister, when he was head of Morneau Shepell, his family business, announced to his investors that we needed legislation in Canada to be able to change the defined pension benefits and allow the targeted pension plans that were the whole focus of Morneau Shepell's business. He said that there was an enormous opportunity and that his company, Morneau Shepell, was in the driver's seat.

He offered himself as a candidate for public service. The very first order of business he brought forward was the Bill C-27 legislation that would directly benefit the company and the industry that he represented. That is extraordinary, and the Prime Minister supported it. There was no recusing at cabinet of a man who had a pecuniary financial interest.

Later we found out, of course, that he still had his financial interest. He was making about $150,000 a month from his Morneau Shepell shares while he was pursuing an interest that would benefit Morneau Shepell. He became famous because he was so rich that he forgot that he owned a château in the south of France. Again, the Liberals said that we were being mean and that was really unfair. A lot of people forget things. I mean, I forget things all the time. When I was leaving the House the other day, I forgot my car keys. I could not find where they were. However, I do not know anybody in the House who forgets that they own a château in the south of France. That is the level of disconnect of the 1% from the rest of us.

The reason this matters is that the fundamental economic issue of our time around the world is the growing disparity between the super-rich, whose interests have been advanced year after year after year, and the growing new working class, both white collar and blue collar, who are finding it harder and harder because they are dealing with large levels of student debt and precarious work. The Liberal government is deeply embedded within that 1%, using its position and political agendas to advance friends and help their friends. The Liberals say that this is all perfectly okay because they are all nice people. That is not an ethical standard of accountability.

Today we have an opportunity to close an ethical loophole that was clearly identified. I would think that when we identify these loopholes, it is incumbent upon all of us within the political realm to say that we should just do the right thing here to make sure that this kind of abuse does not happen in the future and close that loophole.

I return to what the Prime Minister promised in the 2015 election. I was so impressed when he stepped forward and talked about openness and transparency and transparent government, principles that Canadians across the political spectrum agree with.

There are issues that we have always had with the ethics code and the Lobbying Act. Certainly with the ethics code it has always been that if one did not find a person falling down dead with another person holding a smoking gun in their hand and the Ethics Commissioner walking in at the time, intent could never be proven. The lobbying commissioner has pointed out time and time again that it is about the spirit of the act. It is the power of people to influence politicians that has to be clearly defined, because super-powerful people do not have to register for lobbying. That is because they know the people in the PMO. They are the friends, the ones who hang out on the beach on the private islands with key politicians. They make a phone call, and the job gets done.

When the Prime Minister said that he would establish a higher standard, a standard that represented the spirit of the law and not just the narrow letter of the law, I was deeply encouraged, yet here we are with ethical scandal after ethical scandal, and every time, the Prime Minister or his front-bench people step up in defence, because technically no one was caught on anything. They are our friends. The people we hang with are nice people, and there is no need to address these loopholes.

I find that to be an appallingly low standard.

There is a new line that the Liberals use. They used it for my colleague from Brampton and then my colleague from Newfoundland, who took the trip to billionaire island. They say they always “work very closely with the Ethics Commissioner”. What they need to put as a prefix is “after we get caught”. After we get caught, we work closely with the Ethics Commissioner. That is what the Prime Minister and his minions have told us: that the Prime Minister worked very closely with the Ethics Commissioner.

The Prime Minister started to work with the Ethics Commissioner after the complaint was lodged and after he had been found guilty of numerous breaches, such as accepting inappropriate travel and inappropriate gifts from someone in a position to lobby. He did not recuse himself from decisions that could have benefited that powerful lobbyist.

If the Prime Minister and his caucus stood by the principle of working closely with the Ethics Commissioner, they would have phoned the Ethics Commissioner prior to these issues, prior to inviting a business partner to meet with the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers on the India trip. They would have asked if it was okay for them to open some doors for a business partner. The Ethics Commissioner would have responded. That is how we work closely with the Ethics Commissioner. We work with the commissioner in advance to make sure that we are not caught in illegalities or a breach of the rules. We do not wait until we get caught. We do not wait until it becomes a newspaper story and then say that we will make sure we do not do it again. That is a lower standard and a standard that, unfortunately, the Prime Minister and his government seem to have worked their way toward.

There are moments when we have to take a breath in Parliament and say that breaches have happened. When they do happen, we need to then come forward with a credible set of responses.

This brings us back to the defeat of the Liberals in 2006, when there were so many ethical breaches, so many legal breaches in the sponsorship scandal, that we needed to bring forward new legislation, which we did. That legislation was about lobbying. It was about limiting the influence of insiders on political decisions. It was about making sure that we had a higher standard of accountability.

The previous government had many failures and falls as well. There was the notorious Bev Oda, who spent thousands of dollars on limousine rides bombing around Toronto. Bev thought it was perfectly okay. Paul Calandra lobbied, while he was a parliamentary secretary, for FM licenses. If I remember correctly, that money was returned, because it was deemed inappropriate. Bruce Carson was invited into the PMO. He was convicted of fraud. He then left the office and came back trying to sell water plants to desperately poor indigenous communities. His case of inappropriate illegalities went all the way to the Supreme Court.

There will always be politicians who abuse the system. That is part and parcel of public life. When an egregious loophole appears, it is incumbent upon all political parties to close that loophole. It is fairly straightforward. We cannot assume that all politicians will be either moral enough to do that or bright enough to pay attention to the act and understand the implications of using their offices to help friends.

It is an interesting report on the Prime Minister and the Conflict of Interest Act. The Ethics Commissioner found that the Prime Minister “contravened section 11 of the Act when he or his family accepted the gifts of hospitality from the Aga Khan and the use of his private island in March and December 2016.”

The Ethics Commissioner found that the exception for gifts from relatives and friends, under paragraph 11(2)(b) of the act, did not apply, because the Prime Minister's “relationship with the Aga Khan was based on a family connection rooted in a friendship” with the Prime Minister's father that existed 30 years earlier. The Prime Minister accepted inappropriate gifts and said that they were personal family gifts, when he had not met the guy in 30 years.

This is really important. The report said that section 21 of the act was deliberately contravened by the Prime Minister:

he did not recuse himself from discussions that provided an opportunity to improperly further the private interest associated with one of the institutions of the Aga Khan and that he contravened section 5 for failing to arrange his private affairs as to avoid such an opportunity.

That is a serious breach, because that is a question about gifts from powerful people to powerful politicians. It is the power to influence political decisions, and that is what the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner was concerned about.

There was, of course, the contravention of section 12 of the act.

I see I am running out of time. I could go on all day about the ethical breaches of the present government, but I will close on that note.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things that strikes my constituents about this particular issue is that the Ethics Commissioner found that the Prime Minister broke the law, and there was no imposition of a punitive sanction. At the same time, when the finance minister was found to have broken the rules with respect to the disclosure of his forgotten villa, as the member talked about, there was a sanction. It was a couple of hundred dollars. That probably will not break the bank for the finance minister, but at least there was some kind of sanction.

I wonder if the member can speak further to the issue of a consequence if one breaks the law. What kind of response is reasonable? Is it enough for the law to identify when it has been broken but nothing else, or is there a need, a basic expectation Canadians would have, that there would actually be some kind of response when the Prime Minister or someone else in public office breaks the law?

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

Madam Speaker, I have heard the Conservatives ask this question many times. Personally, I am more wary of putting a financial sanction on the Prime Minister of our country for a breach, because the office is so important. However, what I expect from the Prime Minister is full acceptance of responsibility for the actions that caused that breach. This is about the role of the Prime Minister of our nation. It is not simply about a politician or someone who has friends. It represents something greater. I feel that the Prime Minister failed us in this instance. We got a lot of glib talking points and did not get that level of accountability.

With respect to the finance minister, what strikes me is the fact that he forgot his villa and paid a fine of a couple of hundred dollars. He makes more money than that on his stock options by six o'clock in the morning. He probably did not notice it. I am much more concerned about his role with respect to Bill C-27, which I believe is a very clear conflict of interest that would help the pecuniary interest of his family business. That he was allowed to bring that bill forward, and that his company was allowed to be involved in the Sears bankruptcy while the government refused to help the Sears workers, is to me is a very disturbing abuse of the public interest.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it bears repeating that this is the type of response we have had from both New Democrat and Conservative members regarding the report.

It is important to note that immediately after the commissioner's report was tabled, the Prime Minister took responsibility, accepted the findings, and committed to working with the Office of the Ethics Commissioner on future personal and family vacations. For weeks and months, the opposition members asked for a report to be tabled. Now that it has been done, they refuse to accept the findings and conclusions in the report itself.

Today is a great example of when we should be debating the budget implementation bill. We are talking about billions of dollars. It is an important aspect of Parliament to deal with budgets, finances, and social policy.

I wonder if my friend from across the way would recognize that we could debate reports endlessly, not only this report but other priority reports. Does the member not believe that there comes a time when we need to debate government bills, such as budget implementation bills?

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

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat surprised that my friend thought we did not support the findings of the Ethics Commissioner. I think it was a very well-rounded report. She did not find him guilty on all matters but only with respect to key areas, such as the unacceptability of accepting gifts, of trying to then claim that those gifts came from a personal friend, when they were clearly not from a personal friend but were from someone who was in a position to influence government policy, and the failure of the Prime Minister, under section 21, to recuse himself from discussions that provided an opportunity to improperly further the private interests associated with the institutions of the Aga Khan. To me, these were a very clear repudiation of the Prime Minister's position that he has been working all along to further the interests of accountability in this country.

The question we are debating here today is not just the report. We are debating closing the loophole so that this kind of abuse does not happen in the future. That is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians. When a report is delivered that has findings, the government can say that it is great and put it on a shelf with all the other findings it has ignored over the years, or the government can do the right thing and say that it accepts that there was a breach and that it needs to make sure that in the future, it cannot drive a Mack truck full of Liberal lobbyists through these kinds of loopholes. Unfortunately, the current government is trying to divert attention from these egregious loopholes being used by the Liberals to help their friends. I would encourage my Liberal colleague to say that the government will support the amendment and close the loophole. We can then get back to discussing other matters that are certainly of great importance to Canadians.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention and particularly his expertise on this matter. We worked together on matters of conflicts of interest, ethics, and lobbying. I would like to know whether he has any further thoughts on the consequences of reports like this one from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Offenders may be fined up to $500, but that is not a lot of money for someone like the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister. There is also a practice whereby ministers who break the law have to pay back their inappropriate spending. In fact, that was the case for a minister in the current Prime Minister's Liberal government who used a limousine outside the normal course of her duties.

Any inappropriate or illegal gift needs to be declared immediately and returned to the person who sent it. Taxpayers must be reimbursed for any inappropriate spending.

What does my colleague think about the consequences of this kind of condemnation by the conflict of interest commissioner?

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

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, who worked with me on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the last Parliament. We saw many cases where departments or the government used loopholes to avoid their obligations to Canadians.

In this situation, it is obvious that the Prime Minister found a loophole that enabled him to avoid his obligation and receive an illegal gift. It is possible that lobbyists have influenced the government's decisions. That is unacceptable. It is critical that Parliament eliminate loopholes because, under the Liberals, lobbyists clearly have free rein in Parliament. We need only think of the member for Newfoundland and Labrador, the member for Brampton, or the Prime Minister.

The government has set the bar very low when it comes to its obligation to follow the code of ethics and to limit the influence of lobbyists, and that is dangerous. Therefore, Parliament must ask the government to work with the other parties and eliminate these loopholes.

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

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand to speak to this amendment.

Over the last couple of weeks, while we were in our ridings, I had an opportunity to meet with various individuals in Whitby, to have a couple of town hall meetings, and to host one of our ministers. One of the town halls I held was on the budget, and the room was full. I understand the issue of this loophole is an important one, but when it comes to what I hear from my constituents, it is not the top priority for them.

Members of Parliament should be focused on the things that are of importance to Canadians. That was why the budget implementation bill was scheduled for debate this week. That is what we should have been debating today.

The bill would put into place this year's budget. We will continue to grow the economy. We will continue to see what we have seen in Durham Region, of which Whitby is a part, a decrease in unemployment. Unemployment right now is 5.6%, which is the lowest we have seen in 15 years. We are very happy with that, especially when we think about the constituents and young people who are able to get employment.

However, there are some examples of things in the budget implementation bill that we know would be very beneficial to Canadians, such as the Canadian workers benefit to assist low-income workers and the indexed Canada child benefit. We were scheduled to debate that today, but, unfortunately, the Conservatives have moved to cut off that debate, which is quite unfortunate.

We have already made it clear that we respect the work of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. The Prime Minister accepted the findings. For weeks and weeks, those members have called for the—

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are debating the motion concerning the Prime Minister's ethics and not the budget. I would like my colleague to speak about the Prime Minister of Canada's breach of ethics. That is what we are debating this morning.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind the member that the debate allows for some flexibility on the topics discussed, but I also remind the members speaking that we are currently debating the amendment and the motion itself. I am sure that the parliamentary secretary will focus on the subject at hand.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is critically important to speak about the work of the Prime Minister, the ministers, our entire caucus, and government have done.

Over the last little while, opposition members asked for this report. For weeks and months, they asked for the report to be tabled. Now that it has been tabled, they refuse to accept the findings and conclusions. In fact, as I was saying, before my hon. colleague stepped in with that point of order, we should have been debating the budget implementation bill, but we are not.

On this side of the House, we thank the commissioner, we accept the findings, and we will follow the recommendations. The Prime Minister took responsibility. He accepted the findings and committed to working with that office.

I can certainly understand why the opposition does not want to talk about the budget. On March 22, we had a marathon vote related to the budget. A number of very important initiatives were in that legislation and the opposition voted against them. It is no wonder they are choosing to talk about a report from the Ethics Commissioner, a report that they asked for, that has been tabled, and to which we have responded.

I could give a couple of examples of some of the funding. There is research funding for Canada 150 research and centres of excellence. The opposition voted against that. In my riding of Whitby, in Durham region, there are a couple of different post-secondary institutions, the Durham College and the UOIT. They rely on research funding in order to be at the cutting edge, to ensure their students are at the cutting edge. The opposition voted against that.

Today, when we are supposed to be talking about the budget, we are talking about a report that has already been tabled by the Ethics Commissioner and for which the Prime Minister has accepted full responsibility.

During that marathon vote, the opposition voted against funding to help ensure the smooth functioning of courts to promote greater access to justice for Canadians. Opposition members have talked about court delays. They have talked about issues where access to justice has not happened in a timely manner. They voted against funding to ensure that did not happen.

Again, no wonder we are not talking about the budget implementation bill, which the Conservatives moved to cut off debate. While the point of order is to redirect my conversation back to the amendment, cutting off debate when it comes to critical funding for our communities to thrive, for our young people to thrive, for our country to thrive, it is equally as important.

I cannot understand voting against funding to preserve indigenous language and culture, and funding for investments in indigenous youth. As someone who advocates for mental health, as someone who wants to ensure our young people have what they need to thrive and survive, I cannot understand this. We have heard about the number of different suicides and instances of poor mental health in our indigenous communities, especially among young people. Quite frankly, this is appalling.

Again, we are here talking about the report the previous commissioner tabled and her testimony at committee. Many questions related to her report were answered. We accepted the findings.

I will go back to some of the things in that vote.

I want to talk specifically about my last two weeks in Whitby. I had a town hall on housing and one related to the budget. The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour also came to Whitby. During the time she was there, she announced the Government of Canada's student work placement program, which received $73 million over four years to support partnerships between industry and post-secondary institutions. As I mentioned, we have UOIT and Durham College. Trent University is in Durham region as well. She also announced $3.5 million at Darlington Energy Complex for the electricity human resources council to support new opportunities for employers to employ post-secondary students in their elected field.

We had a full house at that event. Everyone in our community was there, from the post-secondary institutions in the riding, to Ryerson, and Centennial College. They understood the importance of those investments in our students. Not one person brought up the report from the Ethics Commissioner. Not one person brought up the Prime Minister's trip.

We held a town hall on housing. During the 22-hour vote marathon, I was supposed to be in Whitby making an announcement. We had invited individuals in the housing sector, individuals who run co-ops, individuals like those who run Denise House, a shelter for abused women. We had individuals from the Muslim Welfare Centre, who support women who are looking to transition out of abusive situations into their own homes. The announcement was for $24 million of funding toward housing in the Durham region, which is sorely needed. I was not there because we were voting on the budget for 22 hours. Again, during that housing town hall, in a packed room, not one individual talked about an Aga Khan vacation. Not one individual talked about the report of the previous commissioner, Mary Dawson.

Not because it is not important, but when we are looking at making a $40 billion investment in housing, with the government stepping back into this in a critical and important way, that is the priority for people. This debate is not a priority for people in Durham Region. It is not a priority for women who are trying to escape from very harmful situations and are trying to get access to housing.

The parliamentary secretary, the member for Spadina—Fort York, joined us at the town hall on housing. There was not a single question about the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's report.

A couple of days later, we had another town hall. As a member of Parliament, it is important to give residents of my riding of Whitby access to information that allows them to understand the federal government's role, how we are spending and what we are doing. Again, it was a full house. It was a rainy, miserable day, so I thought only a couple of people would show up. We had a full house at the Centennial Building Regal Room in Whitby. I talked about the historic investment of $94 million in Durham Region Transit. The residents of Whitby did not know about that. Having that town hall allowed them to get this information.

I spoke to them about the $24-million investment in affordable housing, because some of them did not attend the town hall a couple of days before. I talked to them about the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour coming to the riding and announcing the Canada student work experience placement. I talked to them about the Canada summer jobs program, where we have doubled that investment.

Again there were no questions about the report on the Prime Minister's ethics came up. In fact, one of the things that came up related to the Prime Minister in the setting of a town hall was that he did a number of town halls across the country and answered unscripted questions about a number of different issues. He did not hide or shy away from getting criticism from Canadians or from the very challenging questions asked. In fact, it was quite incumbent upon him to have those meetings, especially in light of the fact that he travels around the world. He travels just as much across Canada talking to people, ensuring our values and positions around feminism, multiculturalism, and equity and justice are promoted. He did that. He took the time to go across the country, town by town, answering questions, some related to this matter.

During that budget town hall, the Prime Minister was applauded for being open and transparent and for making himself available to Canadians, just as I was applauded on that Saturday morning. We talked about various initiatives in the budget. We talked about the growth, progress, reconciliation, and advancement that the budget was focused on.

We talked about equality, and the fact that if we give women tools such as entrepreneurship tools and parental leave, tools that give them the opportunity to reach their full potential not just here in Canada but globally, there would be a large injection into our GDP. A McKinsey report stated that there would be a $12-trillion to $28-trillion injection into the global GDP. It is the same with Canada—there would be a 33% increase in our GDP—so making that investment in women is the focus of this budget.

To have the Conservatives cut off debate on this particular budget is tragic. In fact, it shows Canadians where their priorities are. Their priorities are not around growth and progress, reconciliation, or advancement. We saw that again during that marathon vote, when they voted against every initiative in which we were making investments in things they argued for—for example, the resettlement of Yazidi women. They made a big spectacle on how we were not welcoming Yazidi women. Well, when it came time to vote for the funding to support that, what did they do? They voted against it. It is all smoke and mirrors over here.

This government continues to focus on what really matters to Canadians. What really matters to Canadians is the growth of the country, the fact that we have the highest growth in the G7, the fact that small business, the engine of our economy, has grown and produced 600,000 jobs. We have the lowest unemployment in 40 years. That is what we should be talking about, but we are talking about the Ethics Commissioner's report.

On this side of the House, we respect all officers of Parliament. The Prime Minister has committed to working with the office of the commissioner to clear all future personal family vacations. We take this seriously. We take the report seriously. The opposition called for it for weeks and weeks, and it has been tabled. The Prime Minister has agreed. The House leader has stood many times to say that we will comply with the recommendations, that we will ensure that we clear all future family vacations of the Prime Minister with the office of the commissioner. We have accepted the findings.

However, that is not good enough, and I see why. It is because the opposition members do not want to talk about the budget. Why would they want to talk about it after they took such diligent and particular effort to vote against many of the initiatives that we put forward to ensure that Canadians have what they need to thrive and be successful?

I am now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development. There was an investment to support our international assistance priority. What did the opposition do? It voted against that. We are talking about an additional two billion dollars in the budget to support the poorest and most vulnerable in our world. Again, they were making a scene around Daesh and the atrocities committed on the Yazidi women. We are trying to focus with our international partners, and at this point I would like to thank our NGOs in Canada and around the world who support these great initiatives and work to ensure that the poorest and most vulnerable, often women and children, have the opportunities and tools they need to succeed and to contribute to our global economy.

However, the opposition members voted against that. Why would we cut off debate on this budget when it has so many important initiatives that require funding and require Canada to take a leadership role with our NGO partners around the world.

Canadians are volunteering. It is National Volunteer Week. We have volunteers around the world who are looking for that extra support to do the great work that they do, but today we have cut off debate to talk again about a report that has already been asked for and has been tabled.

Those members were voting against funding for first nations emergency response services, voting against youth employment strategies. Members wax poetic about how important Canada's national defence is, but they voted against that. It is no wonder that they want to cut off debate. They voted against our defence policy to have a strong, secure, and engaged military.

I am going to reiterate that we are going to continue to work with the commissioner as it pertains to the Prime Minister's family and personal vacations. He will ensure that they are cleared by the commissioner's office. The opposition asked for the report to be tabled. It has been. We have accepted the findings, and the Prime Minister has taken responsibility.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have one simple question for the member.

I tabled an amendment to the motion, asking for the report to be sent to the Ethics Commissioner so she can look at the Conflict of Interest Act and the call from the House of Commons to close the loophole that allows the Prime Minister to keep and accept gifts that are deemed to be unacceptable illegal gifts.

The member holds a privileged position on that side of the aisle. She is a member technically of the backbench and she also holds the role of parliamentary secretary, so she has knowledge of what cabinet ministers are thinking. Will the government be voting in favour of my amendment, and will the government caucus be voting in favour of my amendment to the main motion?

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to be clear that we support and respect the commissioner and the office that is held by the commissioner. The office of the commissioner is an important role. She has looked at this particular issue. The previous commissioner tabled the report. We have agreed to clear all future personal and family vacations. We have agreed to accept the findings, and the Prime Minister has taken responsibility.

Our government takes openness and transparency very seriously. We can ensure that more openness and transparency happen throughout our tenure. We can do better; better is always possible. We look forward to working with the members of the opposition to ensure that we continue to strengthen that very robust road that we are currently on toward more openness and transparency.

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

Madam Speaker, when I am watching TV and an infomercial comes on, I switch the channel, but unfortunately I cannot do this in the House. It really feels as though the Liberals have been subjecting us to one long infomercial since the beginning of this debate. They say that the Prime Minister has taken responsibility, fine. However, in Canadians' minds, accepting responsibility also means taking concrete action to ensure that it does not happen again. The amendment is very simple, and the Liberals are telling us how important the budget debate is. I have a lot to say about the budget. Why not cut this short and agree that the amendment makes sense and that the Liberals support it. Then, we could vote and get back to talking about the budget, on which people obviously have a lot to say.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree. The conversation and debate about the budget are absolutely important.

I could see why the opposition has cut off debate on this particular issue. On March 22, we had an opportunity to stand up and vote for a number of different funding opportunities within this budget, which the opposition members voted against: funding to resettle survivors of Daesh, the Yazidi women; funding to prevent gender-based violence; funding to support our RCMP; funding to support our military; and funding to support international aid. It is no wonder that this debate has been cut off.

It is no wonder that they want to talk about a report that has already been tabled. They asked for it, it has been tabled, and we have accepted responsibility. The Prime Minister has stood up many times and said that he has accepted responsibility.

I agree with my colleague that the budget debate is a very important one, one that we should be occupying this House with and debating right now. This is what is important to people in Whitby. That is why I had a full, standing-room-only town hall on Saturday afternoon, a three-hour luncheon with people talking about it. They wanted to know more. There was not one question about this particular issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that my colleague is going into the constituency and listening to what constituents have to say and trying to identify those important issues. If we went to Winnipeg today, we would be talking about the Winnipeg Jets. They are having an awesome season. Everyone wants to see them go to the Stanley Cup with the Winnipeg Whiteout and all that good stuff.

However, today we try to debate a motion that the opposition has brought forward.

There are many different reports out there. The opposition could bring reports day after day, yet it seems to me—and we are thinking along the same lines here—that the priority of Canadians is the issues that we hear about at our community events, and there is nothing more important than a budget debate. I suspect it is only a question of time before we will start to hear members saying that they want more time for the budget debate, yet they are not debating it today.

This is the ideal day on which we could be debating it. I wonder if the member could provide some thoughts on that issue.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard opposition members say a number of times that this is really important legislation, that we need to debate it, and that it is critical. This budget has a number of different initiatives that would help not just the members on the government side, but all members.

However, the opportunity to pose challenging questions to the government, to provide recommendations, to make future improvements, and to look at and analyze the components of the budget that are particularly important to their region and their constituencies is what was essentially cut off today. That is what the opposition decided, to say that this is not important and to talk about a report that has been tabled, that the government has accepted, and that the Prime Minister has taken full responsibility for.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her infomercial on the Liberal Party. If she thinks that we are not interested in the budget, she is mistaken.

It is important to know two things. First, the current Prime Minister is the first person who has held that position to be investigated for ethical reasons, and not just once or twice, but several times. Second, we have received a report in which he was found guilty. It is therefore important to shed some light on the Prime Minister's conduct, since he represents all Canadians.

Members of political parties, no matter what their stripes, must follow a code of ethics. The Prime Minister did not do that and was found guilty. We are asking this question today because we remember the Gomery commission and the $400 million that was never repaid, as well as a disastrous $436,000 trip.

How can an MP, whether Liberal or not, accept the fact that her Prime Minister is tarnishing Canadians' reputation?

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member started by saying that I am doing an infomercial, but somebody needs to talk about the budget. Somebody needs to decide that we are going to bring up important issues, which the constituents in my riding are focused on. Somebody needs to do that.

The member talked about the behaviour of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister accepted responsibility. He also went across the country earlier this year and answered questions from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. He did not sit in a corner and hide. He decided that he was going to go out there and accept that responsibility, and on top of that answer any unscripted questions that Canadians might have.

If we want to talk about the behaviour of the Prime Minister, let us talk about Canada's position in the world. Let us talk about the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Let us talk about an unemployment rate that is the lowest in 40 years. Let us talk about the fact that, under this particular government, Canadians have created over 600,000 jobs, most of them full-time. Let us talk about that, because Canadians who are worried about their current situation or about the economy want to know that. That happened under the leadership of this Prime Minister. He did not cower but decided that it was incumbent upon him to be out there speaking. Again, this is the debate that the opposition decided to cut off.

The report has been tabled. We have already accepted the findings, and the Prime Minister has accepted full responsibility.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche.

I am very pleased to rise in the House today to take part in a debate on a topic that has been discussed at great length in the House over the past few months and that our Conservative colleagues would like to revive. It has been the subject of much debate and has generated dozens of questions from the opposition, questions that the Prime Minister has answered very openly, transparently, and honestly.

The Prime Minister never dodges the issue. He is at the media's disposal and answers all of their questions. He also answers questions from Canadians by holding town halls, as he has been doing over the past few months all over Canada. This is important because he gets to find out what is going on and hear people's concerns. I think our colleagues across the aisle should take inspiration from the kind of meetings the Prime Minister holds. That way, they would come to understand the concerns of Canadians.

The questions primarily touch on families and youth. Canadians want our government to focus on economic development, help our families cope in challenging times, and help our business owners grow their business. That is certainly what we are doing with the latest budget measures. Canadians are especially proud because the Canadian economy is doing well, thanks to our most recent budget and the other two budgets that have been tabled in the past few years. This budget helped created 600,000 jobs across Canada, because business owners and Canadians have confidence in the economy and are investing in their businesses. Workers are taking the jobs they are being offered, which is sending the unemployment rate plummeting. The latest figures show that unemployment in Canada is around 5.9%, the lowest level since 1976. We are very proud of this amazing achievement.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives want to divert the debate and focus on other questions that the Prime Minister has already answered honestly. We respect government institutions and the commissioners who are appointed to do their job. Again, the Prime Minister co-operated with the Ethics Commissioner and answered her questions. Immediately after the report was tabled, since that is what is at issue in the House today, the Prime Minister stated clearly in the House and in front of the media that he would take responsibility. He accepted the findings of the report and committed to submitting his future plans for personal or family vacations to the commissioner.

For months, the opposition asked dozens of questions in the House and we are here again today debating this issue. Now that the report has been tabled, the opposition is refusing to accept the findings. We, on the other hand, want to thank the commissioner for her excellent work and, again, we accept her findings and, like the Prime Minister, we are following all her recommendations.

As I was saying earlier, our colleagues across the way want to divert the debate in order to talk about things that are of interest to them, but not necessarily to Canadians.

We spent the past two weeks in our respective ridings answering our constituents' questions. I can assure the House that in my magnificent riding of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, the economy and jobs are still top of mind. We are living in a time when the economy is doing so well that there is a labour shortage. That is what I am hearing from the entrepreneurs that I talk to. How can we support them even more? Of course, implementing the measures in the budget will benefit them especially.

Here are some examples. Our government has invested some $90 million in the riding in the past 28 months, that is since I was and we were elected in 2015. That level of investment had not been seen for many years. I am very proud of the investments made in various areas. Consider, for example, the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, an ocean research centre in my riding. It is a wonderful institute that falls under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Its dedicated staff of public servants is hard at work studying what is going on in the St. Lawrence River and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. We have invested $27 million to ensure that the institute has the infrastructure needed to carry out its research. Those investments will also help the institute hire several researchers.

Those are some of the important investments being made in my region. People were particularly proud when we announced them because research centres, including that one, did not receive any support from the previous government for 10 years. We have chosen to invest in research in order to have sound evidence.

We also invested several million dollars to upgrade the wharves in my riding. In fact, I recently announced funding for the Carleton-sur-Mer wharf, a wonderful piece of infrastructure that had unfortunately been deprived of investments for the 10 previous years.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou is rising on a point of order.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think a point of order is appropriate here. I have been listening to my colleague for about 10 minutes now, and he has been talking about what his government is doing with the country's finances. I believe we are supposed to be debating the conflicts of interest this government has been a party to for the past year. The Prime Minister has essentially been accused of breaking a federal statute. I think that is what we should be talking about. We moved an amendment to refer the matter to Canada's Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to get some suggestions for how to address the flaws in the legislation. I think the member across the way should stick to the issue at hand.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou's comments. Interventions should, of course, be relevant to the matter before the House. However, I listened to the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. He made a number of remarks and discussed a number of topics that are certainly relevant. He introduced the topic then made a number of arguments in support of the topic of his speech.

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia has two more minutes of speaking time. I will give him the floor.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague did not hear because he was busy doing something else. For several minutes and from the outset of this debate, I spoke openly about the issue, which has been raised yet again. This is something we debated and about which there were many questions in the House. As I already said, the Prime Minister has always been quite open and transparent. He answered all the questions. The former commissioner, in her report and testimony before the committee, answered many questions about this. We stated that we are here again today to debate this issue even though the Prime Minister has already answered all the questions. As soon as the commissioner's report was tabled, the Prime Minister said that he respected the findings of the report and that he accepted all the recommendations.

Once again, the Conservatives want to divert the debate and talk about other things, which, in our view, are not important to Canadians. Canadians want us to talk about the economy, jobs, investments in infrastructure, and how to enhance the development of first nations so we can invest in their communities. That is why we are here. Those are the questions I am asked when I am in my riding. I did not hesitate to participate in this debate in the context of the discussions we had. I believe that I gave good answers and participated appropriately in today's debate.