Debates of Feb. 27th, 2020

Public Safety

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, this listing of regime is an important tool for countering terrorism in Canada and globally, and it is part of the government's commitment to keeping Canadians safe. Listing is just one component of the international and domestic response to terrorism.

With that in mind, I would reiterate that Canada has already taken action against Iran and the IRGC specifically, including listing the IRGC Quds Force. These actions are broadly consistent with our international partners, who have designated components of the IRGC under their own sanctioned regimes.

This past June we listed three militant groups that are aligned with, and controlled by, the Quds Force and operating in Bahrain, the Gaza strip, Syria and Afghanistan. A listing imposes severe penalties for people and organizations that deal with property or finances of a listed entity. Another important point is, of course, that once listed, an entity falls within the definition of a terrorist group in the Criminal Code. This helps to facilitate the laying of terrorism-related charges against perpetrators and supporters of terrorism.

Ethics

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this House.

I have said before and I will say again that, when I was appointed by the leader of the official opposition as the shadow minister for ethics, I told the leader, and I have told folks who have asked, that I hoped to be the most bored in the shadow cabinet, that I would not have any work to do.

Regrettably, the government has demonstrated through its top-down model of disregard for the rules, not only of this place but the rules writ large, that we seem to find ourselves constantly following up on the ethical violations of the Prime Minister, his cabinet members and his backbenchers.

I had the opportunity to ask a question in the House a few weeks ago about former member Joe Peschisolido, who was found guilty of having broken the conflict of interest code. The code is laid out in such a way that it is very easy for us to follow. The purpose of the code, as colleagues know, is so that Canadians can continue to have confidence in their elected officials and have confidence in public institutions.

When we, as the finance minister did, forget to disclose that we have a French villa, for example, Canadians find that a bit incredible to believe.

Madam Speaker, when you and I filled out our disclosures, I do not think that we paused too long on the French villa box. You and I both know how many French villas we have, as I am sure the Minister of Finance did.

In Mr. Peschisolido's case, he failed to disclose a wide range of things. I encourage interested Canadians to take a look at that. I also encourage the government to do the same.

The response I got from the government when I asked the government House leader was that, “Oh, that member is no longer a member of our caucus, so we don't know how it has anything to do with us.” That speaks to the culture that exists in the government benches. That speaks to what we have seen with the Prime Minister twice being found guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest Act, which is also in place to ensure that Canadians can have confidence in their executive, the Prime Minister and his or her ministers.

Whether it is the SNC-Lavalin scandal, clam scam or forgotten French villas, we have seen this litany of ethical breaches with the government. Most recently, again on the subject of disclosures, we make these disclosures to the commissioner with regard to members' personal dealings so that we can make sure members aren't being unduly influenced financially in a pecuniary manner.

The Prime Minister just did not answer the questionnaire. He is required to do so. He did not do it. In response, when he was called out on it, it was an administrative oversight. A week later, the Ethics Commissioner published who had failed to file their disclosures. Canada's Prime Minister's name appeared again.

When will the government start taking the confidence that Canadians have put in them seriously? Do they need any help following those rules?

[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, allow me to provide a quote with respect to what the commissioner said. He stated, “Where I conclude that a Member has contravened the Code and I find no mitigating circumstances, as was the case in this inquiry,” as the member referenced, “I may recommend a sanction for the House to impose on the contravening Member. However, in the present case, given that Mr. Peschisolido is no longer a Member and therefore not subject to the rules governing Members of the House of Commons, issuing such a recommendation would serve no purpose.”

I think the government, or at least the party, has been very consistent in our approach in regard to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. We recognize when mistakes are made, and we follow and respect the advice and recommendations that are provided and thank the commissioner for the fine work he does.

The problem I had with the question posed by the member across the way is he tries to come across as if this is sensitive and he did not want to be kept busy, and all this kind of stuff. To that I say, “balderdash”.

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

Is that parliamentary? Can you say “balderdash” in the House?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there have been so many days when I have seen that the primary objective of the official opposition was character assassination. Its members will constantly go all out to try to identify an issue as an ethical breach, as if the Conservatives, the New Democrats or any other political party has never done anything wrong. Members need to be careful when they throw stones in glass houses.

The member cited how the Minister of Finance broke the code of ethics. We respect what the commissioner ruled on that. Does the member know that the Minister of Finance did not intentionally do what the member is proposing he did? In the case of that so-called French villa, it was shortly thereafter that the fact that the Minister of Finance had a house in France was published in a major newspaper here in Canada. There was no attempt to intentionally hide it.

Yes, sometimes mistakes happen. Members of Parliament on all sides of the House make mistakes, and the commissioner investigates them and comes up with recommendations. To try to give the illusion that there is only one political entity that makes mistakes inside this House is a false impression. There are mistakes made on all sides of the House. When a mistake is made, we need to recognize it and take corrective action. That is what we have seen with this government.

If the member wants to talk about proactive measures, I would remind him of the proactive disclosures we made with respect to the allowances of all members back when we were the third party in this House. We had to literally drag the Conservatives into supporting proactive disclosure. This Prime Minister and this government have taken the responsibility of being open, transparent and accountable very seriously. I would argue that this is something this government has been very good at, especially if we compare it to the Stephen Harper era. We have seen much more open government, transparency and accountability, which was lacking when Stephen Harper was the prime minister.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that I think it is disrespectful to be heckling when members are speaking, even if it is during the late show. All of the contributions that members make need to be heard, and everyone needs to have that respect to be heard and be responded to.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

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

Madam Speaker, I would say balderdash to that.

I do not believe that “character assassination” is the correct term to be used here, because that would imply that what I said was malicious and unjustified. It is a fact that the Prime Minister was twice found guilty of breaking the law, and when he did, he did not apologize; rather, he said he would never apologize. He said he would stand up for jobs, but we know that he did not know what he was standing up for, other than his own seat.

My offer to the parliamentary secretary is in good faith. I am happy to work with him to develop a curriculum for the Prime Minister, the ministers and members of the government backbenches on how to properly follow the ethical guidelines that are in place. Is he interested in taking me up on that offer?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would welcome the participation or a nice sit-down discussion with the member with respect to how it is important that we listen to, follow and look at ways to improve a system, and not only for the Ethics Commissioner.

We can talk about the ombudsmen and election officers. Independent offices of Parliament serve our Parliament exceptionally well. When they come out with reports, we should listen so we can respond, so we can try to make our system work that much better.

I would acknowledge that we need to recognize that it is not just one member or one political entity that needs to learn things from reports. All political entities in the chamber would benefit. Maybe we can start that dialogue over a cup of coffee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:51 p.m.)