Debates of Dec. 11th, 2020

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's Report

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member might not necessarily like what I am saying, but it is not irrelevant to the debate. All one needs to do is read the member's comments to see what he was talking about. He talked about ethical standards and continued his character assassination during his speech. In no fashion whatsoever could he even remotely say that I am not being relevant, because everything I have said today so far has been completely consistent with the types of things he said in his comments.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

The arguments raised are matters of debate.

I invite the hon. parliamentary secretary to continue his speech. He has seven minutes and 26 seconds remaining.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is so important, for the people following this debate, for us to talk about what has been a priority of the government. I made reference to the middle class and those aspiring to join the middle class, but things changed earlier this year.

In the beginning of 2020, we began to recognize that there was going to be worldwide pandemic, called COVID-19. All Canadians and people from around the world recognized that governments needed to work together and work collaboratively to focus our attention on that issue.

The member talks about the WE issue. The Conservatives, in good part supported by other opposition parties at times, have tried to label it as an issue of corruption. I do not believe there was anything corrupt. I do believe some mistakes were made, but that does not make it corrupt.

The member referenced the prorogation of the session. For the first time in 30 years, the House sat during the summer. We sat in a committee format, but it was a committee in theory. In reality, members were sitting inside this chamber, and hundreds if not thousands of questions were being asked of the government.

One would think the focus of the discussions, debates and questions at the time would have been the coronavirus. I was here. I listened to the many questions being asked, the hundreds or thousands of questions. I cannot recall members of the official opposition asking about the vaccine issue. I cannot recall them asking who the government was consulting, whether there were agreements or anything of that nature. Instead, opposition members wanted to push on other issues. That is fine. As they are in the opposition, they get to ask the questions they would like to ask. However, they have tried to give a false impression, one that tries to tell Canadians that the Liberal government is not transparent and accountable, and I take exception to that.

I could give examples related to the Prime Minister that go all the way back to when he was first elected leader of the Liberal Party when it was the third party. He attempted, through unanimous consent, to bring in proactive disclosure for all members of the House. We know how that went. The Conservatives said no to it. The hon. member's former leader, former prime minister Stephen Harper, actually said no to proactive disclosure. He had to be brought into it.

The Conservatives have been consistent with regard to wanting to avoid talking about the issues that Canadians have to face. I find it amazing. Here we are on the last day of the year, and what do members think is on the minds of our constituents in Canada? I believe it is still the pandemic. I believe, in this holiday season when people are going to be celebrating Christmas and the birth of Christ, they are thinking about family and friends and not being able to be together.

I think Canadians are also concerned about the economy. I think they are concerned about the many different issues we have had to face in 2020. Those are the issues that Canadians are concerned about, and one would think this is the type of discussion we should be having, especially given that it is the last sitting day of the year.

A week or so ago, opposition members were hung up on the issue of the vaccines. That is good. It is good they were talking about vaccines. It is so encouraging.

It is interesting that not one country in the world, from what I understand, had a vaccine for its people in the month of November. It is only now, in December, we are starting to see people being vaccinated around the world. Canada will be one of those countries. Canada has a wide number of companies, so we have the best opportunity to ensure our people in our country will be vaccinated in a timely fashion.

We have done some incredible work in that area. Issues of that nature do not mean we have to stand up and applaud the government, but we can still provide constructive criticism and critique the government on issues of that nature. Instead, the Conservatives stand alone. It will be interesting to see the take of my New Democratic or Bloc friends on this. Is this the most appropriate debate we should be having today? I would say no. I believe we should be listening to what our constituents are saying.

I only wish I had more time, I believe I have about 30 seconds left, to expand on all the good things that Canadians have done over the last number of months in that team Canada approach to dealing with the negative impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. We have seen so many heroes in so many ways and different levels of government co-operating and making a difference. Have mistakes occurred? Yes, there have been mistakes made. However, let there be no doubt that we have independent officers of the House of Commons who are there to ensure there are standards that are respected. That is something all of us have agreed to with respect to the independence of the commissioner.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of quick questions for the parliamentary secretary. Because of these ethical questions, does he believe damage has been done to the confidence of Canadians in the government with respect to this important job it is doing during a pandemic? Does the member not believe the House should concur in the report of the independent officer of Parliament who found this violation of the code in the “Maloney Report” by the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore?

Those are two very important questions. Does he think that when ethical rules are broken and those contraventions are verified by an independent officer of Parliament we should concur in that, and if so, will he vote to concur that in? Does he think this hurts the confidence of Canadians in the ability of the government to do its job if they see repeated ethical violations, not in 2011, but today, in 2020?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am tabling the government's responses to Order Paper Questions Nos. 206 to 208.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would concur that in 2020 we have seen a very unusual year because of the pandemic. There has been a very strong call to arms to fight the pandemic. We have seen a wide spectrum of society, different levels of government, non-profits, for-profits and all types of individuals coming together to do whatever it takes to minimize the negative impacts of the coronavirus.

To believe there are not going to be any mistakes would be somewhat naive. Mistakes have occurred, but to take a mistake, especially once there has been an apology, and try to turn it into a mountain, I believe is inappropriate, especially given the times and the gross exaggerations that have taken place in this situation.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think a lot gets blamed on the pandemic.

I myself heard from Mr. Dion during the pandemic. Even though I was very busy with my constituents, I do not think I worked any less hard than the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. I took the time to answer him, and everything was dealt with.

I would like to hear the parliamentary secretary's thoughts about how the pandemic and the exceptional circumstances in which we find ourselves are no excuse for failing to fulfill our obligations as elected representatives.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think that there is an expectation that the public has, both of government and opposition parties of whatever political stripe they might be. We have an independent office of ethics, we have a commissioner, and I believe the commissioner has done a good job. When the commissioner, whether the current or the former commissioner, has come to us and said that there has been a mistake, there has also been guidance in terms of how we rectify that, and we have respected that.

My concern is that sometimes opposition parties will be overly focused on something that just might not necessarily be there. I wish I had more time to go into it in more detail. I am not trying to tell opposition members what they can and cannot do, but I do believe there has been a gross exaggeration, in terms of the whole ethics issue, coming from the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He is always good at making lengthy statements, but ultimately, the issue before us is quite simple. The parliamentary secretary is right about how we need to focus on more important issues.

Should the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore not simply accept the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's decision and apologize so we can move on? I would like a simple, brief and, most importantly, honest answer.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, when the report came out, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore apologized right away. That is the way the system is set up. Mistakes will happen on both sides of the House, and the honourable thing to do is exactly what the member in question did. It is unfortunate that people do not accept it, because, after all, we are all human and mistakes will be made. We take ownership of those mistakes and act accordingly.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will spare members the suspense and announce right away that the Bloc Québécois will support the Conservatives' motion.

However, we will take this opportunity to further discuss ethics and the role of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. We will talk about what the commissioner should have the right to do, the possibility of future amendments and the suggestions that we will make to strengthen the commissioner's power, which is something he himself is asking for.

Before that, I will briefly remind members of the facts. The reason for this debate is the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's November 19 report with regard to the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. In his report, the commissioner found that the member contravened subsection 20(1) of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons by failing to fully disclose his private interests and those of his family members within a reasonable time even after the initial deadline was extended from January 7 to February 7, 2020.

As the first step in the initial compliance process, members must fully disclose those interests to the Commissioner within 60 days after notice of their election is published in the Canada Gazette. That is what we all had to do at the beginning of the year. We had to declare our real and potential interests by January 7.

The member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore submitted his statement, but it was incomplete. He therefore asked for an extension, as did other members, and he was given until February 7 to submit the required information. However, even with this extension and after some information was sent, his file was still incomplete. His initial statement remained incomplete and did not meet the requirements of the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Ultimately, it was not until September 1, 2020, that the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore provided the last of the missing information, which he had not done until then, despite numerous requests from Commissioner Dion. Mr. Dion did contact the member several times to move the file forward, but without success.

It took the media getting involved and newspapers asking him why his report was incomplete to spur the member to action. As my colleague mentioned, the member used the pandemic as an excuse. However, as many will recall, the House was still sitting on January 7 and February 7, as the pandemic was escalating in other countries. We were not yet facing a health crisis here in Canada.

The hon. member knew his obligations to the Ethics Commissioner because this was not his first election. What is more, the member was a lawyer before entering politics. As lawyers we are required to be diligent and respond quickly when we are asked to do something. That is the minimum that can be done, not to mention simple common courtesy.

The hon. member waited until September 1, 2020. That is no longer a matter of carelessness. It is outright negligence. That is why the commissioner finally recommended a sanction. It is provided for under the code, but this is the first time this has been done in such a context, which illustrates how annoyed the commissioner was by the hon. member's lack of respect and diligence.

In his report, the commissioner reminded members of the importance of obeying the rules, saying that the report should serve as a reminder to all members of the House of the importance of fulfilling their compliance obligations under the code. The compliance rules in the code ensure transparency and accountability to the Canadian public.

No pandemic can be used as a justification for not fulfilling one's obligations to transparency. On the contrary, it should be more important than ever to ensure that hon. members meet these obligations during a pandemic.

That said, this is not the first time that the Ethics Commissioner has made comments about his role. In September 2018, the commissioner mentioned that the intergovernmental affairs minister at the time had violated the ethics rules by granting a fishing permit to a fishing company that stood to make millions of dollars from it. A member of his family was employed by that same company.

It was already an issue at that time and the commissioner wanted more powers, in particular the power to intervene in cases where there was a breach of trust and a breach of ethics.

The comments of the then ethics commissioner are even more relevant today. We need only think of certain ethical breaches that have occurred in recent years. I am thinking in particular of what happened in the Aga Khan file. The Prime Minister and his family had the privilege of a paid vacation, which earned him a reprimand from the Ethics Commissioner.

He received a second reprimand from the Ethics Commissioner for allegations of interference in the SNC-Lavalin case.

More recently, WE Charity paid for a vacation taken by the former finance minister. The whole WE Charity case caused the government to prorogue Parliament this summer in order to deflect attention from the case. Furthermore, some members of Parliament hired family members in their riding offices, which is a breach of ethics.

The Bloc Québécois is therefore suggesting that members further discuss the role of the Ethics Commissioner, as the commissioner himself has requested.

We are suggesting that members look into four ideas based on what the Ethics Commissioner himself wants to be able to enforce.

For example, when the wrongdoing is quantifiable and has a monetary value, it should be reimbursed. This is what we saw with the finance minister. He reimbursed the $41,000 for the trip that had been paid for him, but he was not obligated to do so. If the rule had been enforced on the trip to the Aga Khan's island, the amount of the reimbursement would have exceeded $100,000. That could become an incentive to follow the ethics rules more closely.

Another suggestion could be imposing a more substantial fine on those who violate the code of ethics, since it is currently only around $500. The Ethics Commissioner suggested that it should be more like $10,000, which would serve as more of a deterrent than what we currently have.

In some cases, parliamentary privileges could be suspended outright, thereby ensuring that the higher a person is in the parliamentary hierarchy, the more transparent and accountable they must be. Sanctions could be tougher for those who must exhibit perfect transparency and perfect adherence to the integrity and ethics rules.

Finally, work could be done on the issue of parliamentarians' immediate family members. Perhaps a code of ethics is needed for them, as well. A code of ethics should also be imposed on them, as though they were an extension of the MP's duties. Perhaps that would have been a deterrent in some of the more recent cases that history has brought to light.

In closing, we suggest that the Ethics Commissioner be given increased powers, including the ability to intervene more, as the commissioner himself has suggested. This would avoid the need for us to strike a committee every time there is a breach. It would ensure that the Ethics Commissioner would be given more power so that parliamentarians would no longer feel that they can walk away every time with a simple apology.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member cannot have it both ways. She cannot say that she likes what the Ethics Commissioner is saying and quote something to her advantage, and then, on the other hand, when the Ethics Commissioner says something that she does not like, misrepresent it.

For example, the member made reference to Bill Morneau. What did the Ethics Commissioner say about Bill Morneau and the expenses? He believed what the minister at the time explained and said that there was no conflict, yet the member just put on the record that the former minister, Mr. Morneau, did, in fact, violate. She cannot have it both ways.

The idea of an Ethics Commissioner is to take the politics out of it, and we see that as a good thing. I wonder if the member would recognize what she has just done. Is that not a conflict in itself?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, the fact remains that the minister ended up stepping down, which seems to confirm in and of itself that there was a breach of ethics, but that was what the minister chose to do at the time.

In any case, I do not think that I am in a position of conflict of interest myself when I say that we should give more power to the Ethics Commissioner, regardless of the situation. That would enable us to take the politics out of ethics in the future, which would not be a bad idea in some contexts. It would also make it possible to give the Ethics Commissioner more independence and especially more power so that his recommendations are not simply recommendations and so that the sanctions are more effective.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for her speech.

I think we are on the same page. She gave clear direction, despite the somewhat confusing comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

I want to come back to the sanctions. Take, for example, former finance minister Bill Morneau. When he was found guilty of violating the Canada Elections Act, he was fined $300. When he violated the Conflict of Interest Act, he was fined $200.

That is about how much a multi-millionaire Bay Street banker spends on coffee every morning. It is not very dissuasive.

I would like the member from Saint-Jean to talk to us about these completely ridiculous fines.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his question.

He is right. It is not a deterrent at all. Considering what all parliamentarians get paid, a $500 fine is ridiculous, which is why the commissioner himself recommended increasing the amount of the fine to something more substantial, like $10,000.

In addition, as I said, the commissioner should have options other than monetary penalties, specifically penalties that really hit home and affect our parliamentary privileges, such as the ministerial roles that some members have.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question for the member is whether she believes that repeated contraventions of the Conflict of Interest Act and the code for members affect the confidence that Canadians have in members of Parliament and the Government of Canada to effectively deliver on our responsibilities, particularly in the context of the emergency situation we are in with the pandemic. Record amounts of money are being spent and there is a need for vaccines and rapid testing.

Are Canadians not convinced that the Liberal government can handle the task in front of it when we know that it cannot act ethically?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know for sure that people are sick and tired of all these endless ethics scandals.

The fact that they keep happening is proof that sanctions may not be appropriate because they do not serve as deterrents.

Maybe the reason we are seeing repeated violations of the code of ethics is that the sanctions are not commensurate with the ethical violations. That is why it would make sense to give the commissioner the latitude and power he is asking for.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is fortuitous, I suppose, that I am in the House today. I am here for another reason. I did not know we were going to be having this discussion today, but I am glad that I am here because somebody has questioned my honour. I am going to stand here and defend it.

I will issue a challenge right now to any member in the House, to any member who is listening online or to anybody who hears about this later: I will stand with them anywhere, any time, and defend my ethics and my honour.

Sometimes politics gets reduced to people playing dirty. They get cheap. When the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes presented this today that is how I would categorize it: nothing more; nothing less.

Let me start by saying that I have total respect for the Ethics Commissioner, the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the process they use when going through reports and preparing reports. When the report was tabled in the House of Commons a few weeks ago, at 10 o'clock, I stood up virtually and did what the Ethics Commissioner recommended. I apologized and I apologized unconditionally because I respect him and his office. To now ask for a concurrence of the House can only be characterized as an assassination of my character or using me as an assassination of the character of this government. I am glad I am here to defend myself.

I do not know whether the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes or other members have actually taken the time to read the report in its entirety. It appears to me that they have not, because if they had they would feel ashamed for some of the remarks they have made today. Let me tell the House those facts.

When we were elected in the fall of 2019, we were all required to file our compliance statement. My statement was due in early January. The House was not sitting, if colleagues recall. I emailed the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, apologized because I was late and said that I would be filing it in short order. I returned to Ottawa in January when the House resumed sitting. I had my information hand delivered to his office on January 23, 2020.

On January 24, 2020, I returned to my office from question period and a member of my staff said that there was more information needed. I asked her how she knew that. I walked over to her computer and I was looking at an email from the Ethics Commissioner's office that had scanned my complete report and all of my financial personal information that I had submitted the day before.

Let me ask every member in the chamber how they would feel if that happened to them. It is a rhetorical question because I know the answer.

I immediately picked up the telephone. I called the Ethics Commissioner's office. I expressed my dissatisfaction with what had just taken place. I said that I expected to have a conversation with the Ethics Commissioner himself because I would like an explanation and I would like an apology. I subsequently received an email from a staff member in his office with an “I'm sorry”, but no word from Mr. Dion. I again put in writing that I would like to hear from Mr. Dion to explain to me how this could have happened and to explain to me, more importantly, how he will take steps so that it does not happen again in the future.

Over the course of the next weeks, I had another email from the office, several of them, in fact. Some of them are laid out in the report, if people care to read it. I said, “I have given you all of my information. I don't have any more information”.

What had not been provided was my tick mark in five boxes on one page of the very long disclosure statement. I told them the reason that I did not tick those boxes was that I did not truly know the answer. I was not hiding anything because they had then all of my financial personal information, which answered the questions asked in the disclosure statement that they said was outstanding.

I reiterated that position several times, until early March when I got a response from his office saying, “Here is the information that is outstanding.” I responded, “I still expect to hear from Mr. Dion, but if you want it again, I will send it to you.”

Perhaps that is where I fell down, because I did not send it. It was on March 5, and everybody will recall that on Friday, March 13, the House adjourned for five weeks, which at the time we thought was a lengthy period, because of the pandemic.

Over the course of the next several months, I did what every other member of Parliament was doing. I worked with my constituents to make sure they were safe, to make sure they were able to be brought back to Canada safely, and to make sure they got the services that were available to them. That was my total preoccupation at the time.

Mr. Dion sent me three letters over the course of three months, to which I did not respond. I apologized to him. Nonetheless, I did not hear from Mr. Dion, nor did the office ask for further information. It was asking me to tick those five boxes. Ultimately, in August of this year, I ticked the five boxes and sent them back. There was no additional information.

However, by this point an investigation had been opened. According to the process, it cannot be called back once it is started. I had to go through this process with Mr. Dion and his counsel in his office. I explained all of this to them. Through that process, I explained to him that I respect his office. What happened after that is getting into the details and repeating myself.

There was nothing new. What I did in January was what was done in August. On the Ethics Commissioner's website are columns that read “you have not submitted your disclosure statement”, “you have submitted but there is some outstanding information”, “there is outstanding information with the office”, or “complete.”

My status on that website, until about August 20 of this year, was “you have not submitted”. This was factually incorrect, because I did. That is what gave rise to this whole issue.

Members can read the report. Nowhere in there does it say that I hid anything or I failed to disclose anything. I handed it in late.

Somebody may stand in the House and tell me what the job of a lawyer is. In my previous life, before I came to the House I took great pride in practising law for over 20 years. Ethics and responsibility were two of my hallmarks. I will line up people to back me up on that. Someone might use the word negligence. How dare they?

When I was practising, if somebody in my office inadvertently disclosed the confidential information of one of our clients, I would expect the most senior person in my office to pick up the phone and issue a formal apology, and explain how it happened.

I stood in the House and apologized, because that is what I was required to do. I am here doing it again, but do not let anybody dare to question my ethics or my integrity.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, since my hon. colleague is referring to the report, I would like to do the same.

On June 1, the commissioner sent him a letter. On June 25, having received no response, the commissioner requested an interview. On July 10, having still not received a response, the commissioner sent a second copy of the letter of June 25 requesting an interview. Again, he received no response. Finally, on August 5, the commissioner published the list of members who had yet to fulfill their obligations. The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore was the only one on the list. That is why he called the commissioner that day.

Can he confirm whether this attitude is respectful to the Ethics Commissioner?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, maybe the member did not listen to my remarks.

I acknowledged receiving those three letters, and I said that I did not respond to those three letters. I explained why today, and I explained why to the commissioner. It was not indicated in August that I had not complied. It was done in January.

The member should look at the website now. I can assure the House that there are members who have not fully complied in all parties.

I am not going to repeat it. Please read the report, because members will learn the facts as I presented them. I gave the commissioner all of the information in January. I acknowledge not responding to those letters, but there was no new information. As I said, I was not intending disrespect.

If somebody deserves to be punished for handing something in late, I am guilty because that is what happened.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking our colleague and acknowledging his courage in being here in the House to face the music. That is not easy. These are difficult situations.

As far as statements to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner are concerned, I must be one of those who do not get them in on time, and I am not usually the one to get them in first. However, many reminders are sent, and we are given many opportunities to provide all the documents that are requested.

I admit that it is no fun, but is it not true that the hon. member got a bit huffy and confrontational with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner by refusing to respond to his letters and questions, which is how he ended up in the situation we are discussing today? I think he could have answered the questions and the requests of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and had more than enough time to do so.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question and for his kind remarks.

Believe me, courage is not the emotion I am feeling right now. It was not confrontational at all. I did not choose overtly not to respond to the commissioner. I will say again that I believed then, as I do now, that I had provided all of the information. Yes, those letters went unresponded to, but keep in mind what was going on at the time. I am not saying that is a valid excuse, but I am telling the member what happened. It was not intentional. It was not a sign of disrespect to the commissioner. I was preoccupied doing what we were all doing at the time.

I was not trying to pick a fight with the commissioner by any means. In fact, I was trying to work with him to get this process completed, and it could have gone in a different direction. Based on the facts, I hope people here today understand what I went through and how unfortunate the discussion is that we are having here today.

Again, I thank the member for his comments.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I, too, thank the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore for answering questions and giving his statement today.

I have read the report in its entirety, and it says that the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore “... submitted a disclosure statement but it was missing some information, which he was given until February 7 to provide”.

The member said that the report was late, but the commissioner has said that the information provided was incomplete. Does the member disagree with the commissioner's findings?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will take the member at his word that he read the report, but maybe he was not listening to what I said earlier.

What was outstanding was not information: it was answers to questions on the form, which I had told the office I did not know the answers to. The supporting documentation was all there. There were five boxes.

I am happy to sit down with the member at any time he wants to go through this. I would love to know what he would have done under the circumstances.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes has risen and stated his case, the report is public and the information is before Parliament. Canadians can render their own decision.

I, too, add my voice those who thank him for showing up here and making his case in person. I know that must not have been an easy thing to do, but it takes courage. I thank him for carrying out his duty to hold government accountable and to the highest standard of ethics.

That being said, the controversy is about the disclosure of financial assets, so I would not be parting very far from the subject at hand if I were to talk about the government's non-disclosure of its financial assets. If we are going to require a Liberal MP, or any MP, to disclose assets and therefore interests, surely the assets that belong to the Canadian people should be equally disclosed.

The subject here is ethics and transparency, so I turn the House's attention to the hundreds of billions of dollars's worth of assets that are owned by the Canadian people but for which we have not experienced adequate transparency. The government spent $80 billion without giving serious transparency to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and further to that, the Bank of Canada has purchased 400 billion dollars' worth of assets without disclosing all of the financial implications, the costs, the buyers and the sellers for which those transactions occurred.

This represents a monstrous transfer of wealth. Since the crisis began in March, the bank has begun purchasing financial assets, mostly government bonds. This has driven up the value of those assets and therefore the wealth of the people who hold them. It has been noted in the House that the 15 wealthiest billionaires in Canada have seen their net worth rise by over 30% since the pandemic began, and that cannot just be pandemic profiteering, because many of these billionaires have assets in fields that have not done well during the pandemic.

What has caused these assets to inflate in value? The answer is that whenever the government, through its central bank, prints 400 billion dollars' worth of money and pumps it into the financial assets of the system, those who have assets become wealthier. That would be just wonderful if there were no consequences for anyone else. However, the historical experience is that when governments print money to pay their bills, which is effectively what the government is doing here, eventually it raises the cost of living for everyone else.

The bank claims it is technically not printing money. Well, the data that is available tells exactly the opposite story. In fact, the number of banknotes in circulation, which are the $5, $10 and $20 bills that one can purchase things with, is up 8%, even at a time when people are using less paper cash than ever before. This is the largest percentage increase since the mid-1980s.

M1 money supply is up 17%, even while the economy shrinks, and when the supply of money exceeds the production of goods and services, eventually, though not immediately, we experience inflation. It is a phenomenon, the Governor of the Bank of Canada admitted to me before the finance committee, that falls heaviest on the shoulders of the poorest people. Why is that? It is because they deal disproportionately in cash. Whereas the wealthy can protect themselves from inflation by shovelling their money into assets that inflate in value, the poor deal mostly in cash and therefore have their very limited net worth eaten away.

Here we have a monstrous policy of transferring wealth from wage-earners to asset-holders, from the working class to the wealthy. The Prime Minister should know this, because when he was asked his definition of rich versus middle class, he said the middle class are the people who live off wages and the rich are those who live off assets. Here we have a policy that is specifically designed to transfer wealth from those who earn wages to those who earn capital gains through their assets.

There is no doubt that this phenomenon will lead to a greater concentration of wealth, that the wealthiest 1% who own the most expensive and luxurious real estate and have in their portfolios the most stocks and bonds and other financial instruments will continue to see their net worth expand, having done nothing, by the way, to deserve that expanded net worth. It is not because they invented a new product or delivered a new service; it is simply because they sat back in their rocking chairs, while the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the banking system that it creates pumped air into those very same assets.

Members should try talking to a young person who is attempting to buy a house these days. The asset inflation of real property has put that out of reach. Whereas the wealthy who are already landed and in possession of luxurious real estate properties become wealthier and wealthier still. Here we are debating the disclosures of one member's personal assets and I cannot get the Bank of Canada to give me information about the amount it paid and what it got for its purchases of these assets.

One of the very interesting things about how this all works is that the Bank of Canada is the financial agent of the government. Therefore, when the government runs these huge deficits, it raises the money by selling bonds into the marketplace to investors. However, with this new program of printing money and purchasing assets, the bank is now buying back the very same bonds that it sells out. It sells a bond to a wealthy investor to raise money for the Prime Minister to spend and then, sometimes in the same week or month, purchases the same bond right back from the same investor.

I have asked the Bank of Canada officials if there have been cases where the bank sells a bond and then buys it back at a higher price, thereby profiting the investors at the expense of the taxpayer-owned bank. In other words, the investor gets rich by arbitraging the difference between the price at which he or she purchased the bond from our central bank and the price for which the bank bought it right back.

The bank will not tell me that this is happening, but when we are talking about $400 billion worth of transactions, that is bigger than the normal program spending of the Government of Canada for a year. It is twice as much as the governments of Canada spend on health care, to put it into perspective. It is an absolutely enormous sum of money, yet the bank will not release information on who is profiting and at whose expense.

Therefore, I asked the finance minister and she said that I should ask the Bank of Canada. I did ask the Bank of Canada and it will not give me the numbers.

Therefore, we have in the House of Commons MPs who are squabbling. The NDP is squabbling over a $6 billion wealth tax. The Liberals are bragging that they brought in a new tax on stock options that will raise $50 million. We are talking about $400 billion here that the central bank is playing with, many orders of magnitude larger in sum and consequence than the chicken scratch that Liberals and New Democrats are fighting over.

They always tell us they are so worried that the rich are getting richer, but when our central bank, which is supposed to be accountable to us and whose $5 million in shares are held in the name of the finance minister, pumps $400 billion into financial markets and enriches the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the working-class wage earner, we hear nothing but silence from the social justice warriors on the other side of the House of Commons. They are just fine seeing the wealth gap get bigger as long as government gets bigger along with it.

We, on this side of the House, believe in financial transparency and in merit-driven wealth rather than crony capitalism. We call on the House to demand greater accountability and transparency from our central bank and from our government, because this money is Canadians' money and we are their voice.