House of Commons Hansard #5 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pandemic.

Topics

Bills of Exchange ActRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Laurier—Sainte-Marie Québec

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-5, an Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

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

moved:

That the House:

(a) concur in the report of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner entitled “Peschisolido Report”, tabled on Wednesday, February 5, 2020, and thank him for his work;

(b) resolve that Joe Peschisolido's 10 breaches of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons cast unacceptable reflections upon the House and its members, amount to an offence against the dignity and authority of the House, and warrant sanction; and

(c) order Joe Peschisolido, former member of the House of Commons, to provide, no later than the 15th sitting day following the adoption of this order, a written apology to the House, in respect of his breaches of the Code by way of a letter addressed to the Speaker, provided that the Speaker shall, at the conclusion of Oral Questions next following its receipt, read it to the House and lay it upon the table.

It is unfortunate that I find myself having to move this motion today. Over the last almost six years, we have seen a slow and steady degradation of the confidence Canadians can have in this democratic institution.

The issue of Mr. Peschisolido's conduct and the 10 breaches of the Conflict of Interest Code causes me great concern. They certainly were found to have contravened the rules of this place.

This is a problem that has been caused by a trickle-down effect in the Liberal government. We have a Prime Minister, the head of the Liberal Party, who started out his tenure as leader, as Prime Minister, as head of the government, with an act that broke the law. That is contained in “The Trudeau Report”. This is that famed and unfortunate event, the trip to billionaire island. We know that that first breach of the act, which is the first time a prime minister in Canadian has been history found guilty of breaking ethics laws, had a ripple effect across Parliament and, really, across this country.

However, what followed afterwards was a domino effect that led to Mr. Peschisolido's conduct and the finding of guilt against him. It included multiple investigations and multiple findings by the Ethics Commissioner that members of the Liberal Party, members of the Liberal government, had broken ethics laws.

Bill Morneau, the former finance minister, found himself embroiled in scandal on a number of occasions. The first, of course, was the forgotten corporation and forgotten French villa, which was a disingenuous explanation at best.

We have in this case with Mr. Peschisolido, just as we have in the case of the WE scandal, just as we have in the case of clam scam, and just as we have in the case of so many of the breaches of the ethics, regulations, rules and laws of this place, claims from the Liberal members that it is not true. We heard that from the Prime Minister when he infamously claimed that the story in the Globe and Mail was false, but which later led to the “Trudeau II Report” finding that the Prime Minister had interfered in the criminal prosecution of his friends at SNC-Lavalin.

When we have, rooted at the head of the cabinet table, at the head of the governing Liberal Party, a member who has repeatedly breached ethics laws and is under investigation again, it is no wonder that we see members of his party flout the rules. It is serious when a backbencher does it, and it is serious when the Prime Minister does it.

These behaviours are unchecked, as we have seen when members of the Liberal caucus are given the opportunity to walk out the back door when they are facing serious questions about their conduct, including conduct that has led to criminal charges. There was one for a member who was elected in 2019 alongside the Prime Minister and these Liberals, and one for a member who did not re-offer, but who was elected with these Liberals in 2015 and is now under investigation for breaking the Criminal Code of Canada.

We have seen members of that same caucus ejected for trying to uphold the rules. We saw that with the former president of the Treasury Board, Dr. Jane Philpott. We saw that with the former attorney general, the member for Vancouver Granville, who was booted from caucus and unceremoniously kicked out of cabinet.

Canadians need to know that the integrity of the House and its members is second to none. We have a case here where we do not have one breach, or two, or five. We have 10 breaches of the code that governs members. Ten breaches by this now former member and no consequence will be brought to bear on him. That cannot stand. That cannot be what Canadians see from the House.

In this place we use the term “honourable member”. We refer to each member as hon. members, and our honour is not something that is to be called into question by another member. However, when we have the Ethics Commissioner make a finding like this, when we have the Ethics Commissioner continue to identify events that are breaches of the code and where ethics laws have been broken, then it is incumbent on those who took on the responsibility, who swore the oath, to protect the reputation of this democratic institution and all its members. That is why the motion calling for this apology is eminently reasonable and very necessary.

Members need to know that there will be a reckoning if there is a breach of the code, even if they did not re-offer in an election or were not successful in their bid for re-election. This place goes on. It was here long before any of us arrived, and it will be here long after, God willing. While we temporarily occupy the seats for our 338 constituencies, we need to defend this place, so that whoever comes next, whatever party they represent, can be called an hon. member as well. That is not to be called into question by Canadians who wonder was there not that case of this prime minister, or that finance minister, or this individual who broke the code. There was no consequence for them, and members of the House did not see fit for an apology from them.

I am asking all members of the House, across party lines, to do as they would do if they looked across the aisle and saw a member of the opposing party breach the code 10 times. Would we want that member to deliver an apology to the House? We absolutely would. That is what we are looking for here today. It is important that we all take our role seriously and that we take these breaches seriously, because they are. It is important that we do what little we can in terms of seeking restitution, of seeking some repair to the damage to the reputation of this place and its members by soliciting and tabling an apology from Mr. Peschisolido.

We are bound by the code. We must follow the code, and when we fail to follow the code, there must be a reckoning. That is what we are calling for here today.

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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, if we take a look at what is happening around us today, Canadians from all regions of our country are very much concerned with the second wave of a very serious pandemic. We were supposed to be debating legislation and having a discussion about the many things we could be doing as parliamentarians to assist, both directly and indirectly, literally millions of Canadians. That is what we were supposed to be debating here today.

The member has a choice. He can continue to have this debate, which he has chosen to advocate for today, or he could gain an appreciation of what it is that is on top of mind for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. He had a choice. It is something that he did have to raise today.

My question for the member is this: Why did he specifically choose today? Why not wait until after we deal with the legislation that is so critically important in providing the resources that Canadians need now?

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

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

Madam Speaker, I will take no lessons from that member or from these Liberals on what can be done by the House. The Liberals shut down Parliament six weeks ago. They shut down committees, just like they did last night at PROC. To be clear, the hon. member knows very well we are not debating the benefits that Canadians could receive. We are going to be debating closure of the motion.

Again, the Liberals are shutting down debate in the House. It is ridiculous to hear from the member that we are delaying the work of government. The Liberals shut down the House for six weeks. They shut down committees for six weeks. It was again to avoid accountability.

Instead of addressing the issue that has been raised, and my motion is in order, the member is looking to deflect. We are talking about protecting the integrity of the House, the House which the member and his party shut down for six weeks. We are going to continue to do our job to hold the government to account, and I am going to continue to do my job to make sure that the integrity of democratic institutions is protected and preserved.

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Madam Speaker, it is hard to disagree with the member's motion, especially since the only thing a member has is their integrity.

The parliamentary secretary pointed out earlier that this is a time when we should be focused on helping Canadians. The government is not helping Canadians by using the special powers it was given only to wind up in a situation like the WE Charity scandal.

I would also like to tell my colleague that another conflict of interest may have slipped under the radar for some. I am talking about the use of the wage subsidy. I do not understand how a political party managed to double dip, taking money from a program designed to help struggling businesses and using it to fund the party.

I do not know whether my colleague agrees.

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Jonquière is absolutely right. The government did use the goodwill of the House, and powers that were given to it during extraordinary times, to attempt a power grab. Then it took the extraordinary benefit of the doubt that was given by all members of the House, the team Canada approach that we all engaged in, to look to give half a billion dollars to an organization that had given half a million dollars to members of the Prime Minister's family. Again, when the current government looks to avoid accountability, and to avoid proper use of the resources and the powers given to it, it must be held to account by all members in this place.

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:25 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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, it is with some disappointment that I rise to address the motion that my colleague from across the way has decided to bring in on what I believe is a very important day for all Canadians.

We have gone through a great deal over the last eight months. We have seen a great sense of co-operation in our society. We have a Prime Minister and cabinet who virtually work seven days a week, trying to be there in a very real and tangible way. We have very strong national leadership that is supported by provinces and territories across the country. There is a strong sense of co-operation and teamwork among Canadians, not only among provincial, territorial and national governments, but in our cities, municipalities and non-profits. It is a very long list of people who came together, recognizing the importance of what Canadians are rightfully concerned about: the pandemic. It has killed thousands of people and will continue, unfortunately, to kill others.

As a government, we have been aggressively pursuing the best interests of Canadians, and we have made it very clear that we will be there for Canada every day. We will have the backs of the people of Canada, and we have seen a wide spectrum of programs that have been brought forward to support Canadians in this time of need.

Today, we are supposed to be debating the pandemic and how we can continue to support Canadians, and this is why it is so disappointing. Of virtually all the different stakeholders, the only stakeholder group I can think of that consistently puts up a roadblock is the Conservative Party of Canada. We see that, at every opportunity those members get, they are more than happy to try to change the topic and lose the focus of what Canadians want us to be concerned about and debating.

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:25 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:25 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I want to remind members they will have an opportunity to ask questions and comment. I would ask that they hold on to their thoughts at this point and allow the member to be able to deliver his speech without interruption.

The hon. Parliamentary secretary has the floor.

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, whether the Conservatives want to hear that or not, it is the truth.

I spend a great deal of time inside the chamber, whether during summer sittings, fall or spring. I can tell members that, with my years of experience in opposition and more than 20 years as a parliamentarian, never have I seen as much waste of parliamentary time as with the measures taken by the Conservative opposition members since virtually 2015, and their focus is very simple. All they have focused on, since day one, is how they can be critical of the Prime Minister of Canada. That is their only concern, and they try to expand that to other ethical questions. From day one, that has been their focus. One would think that it would be the pandemic and issues surrounding the pandemic. The bill that was introduced earlier today was seconded by the leader of the New Democratic Party. MPs of all political stripes, and I suspect there might even be some quiet ones within the Conservative Party, understand that we all have a role to play in this matter. All of us have a role to play.

As I have said in the past, I and other Liberal members of Parliament appreciate having our deputy House leader provide the opportunity for daily contact and for sharing the experiences we were hearing from our constituents. From the Prime Minister's perspective, it was important that, as members of Parliament, we listen to how the pandemic was affecting our constituents, and then get that information back to the government. The deputy House leader, working with some fantastic colleagues and support staff, was able to gather many different ideas, and that facilitated the modifications necessary for a wide spectrum of programs that this government brought forward. It has not been just Liberal MPs doing this, but MPs of all political stripes. Why is this? It is because we are listening to what Canadians are talking about, and we can appreciate their anxiety and worry.

We need to be there for our seniors. There is a great deal of concern regarding their accommodations. Many people are looking to Ottawa to continue demonstrating the leadership needed to get us through this pandemic. That is why it is so important that we continue what we have started since the throne speech. When we prorogued the session, we turned the page and got even more focused on what would be taking place in the coming months and years. Based on what we were hearing from Canadians from coast to coast to coast, that is what Canadians want, and that is what Canadians are going to get from this government and from all those individuals who want to deal with this proactively.

The motion brought forward today is an attempt to change the channel. However, it is interesting that Rob Anders, a former Conservative MP, is facing allegations of tax evasion with Canada Revenue. Members can check the news.

Do the Conservatives want to deal with that? No, of course not. Instead, they want to bring up an issue where they can expand upon their hopes of being able to talk about nothing but the Prime Minister, other ministers, Liberal members and ethics.

I have listened to many of their arguments. No one is perfect, but throughout this pandemic our Prime Minister has been very clearly demonstrating the importance of all of us working together to be there in a very real and tangible way for Canadians at a time when we need to be there for Canadians.

The legislation we are talking about is an extension of programs that were very effective at putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of Canadians so that they would have disposable income to buy the basics of life. That is what we should be talking about. Instead, the opposition wants to have endless votes, they want to change the topic of the debate in the chamber and then they want to cry that they do not get enough time to talk about what they really do not want to talk about. Really? I have seen that show before. I have seen all the filibustering and wasting of time.

As the official opposition they can spend the time on whatever they want, but as the government we are going to continue to cover the backs of Canadians in all regions of our great nation.

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:30 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I again want to remind the members that when somebody has the floor to please be respectful and allow that person to finish their speech or thought.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked about covering people's backs. We know who the government is trying to cover for. It is for the insiders; it is for their Liberal friends, just as in the case of “The Trudeau Report”, just as in the case of the “Trudeau II Report” and just as in the case here. They don't want to address the issue of the rules of this place being broken.

For six weeks, and in fact even before that, the Conservatives called for the doors of this place to be opened and for us to continue to meet like this. We could have had the new program in place that they want to talk about today.

If the measures the Liberals wants to present today are so important, why are we debating closure of the motion instead of having passed this motion six weeks ago, when they shut down the House to further a cover-up of the corruption in the government?

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, we are not debating that. We are not debating it because the member has brought forward a motion that could have just as easily been a topic of discussion at the procedure and House affairs committee.

There are many different ways the member could have dealt with the issue. This is the first time I have heard this particular member say that the opposition would like to have a discussion about this particular issue. If he had approached me with regard to this, I would have entertained having a discussion and maybe looked at ways we could have addressed it along with other concerns.

Let us realize that what we should be talking about today is how the House of Commons of Canada can continue to assist Canadians in all regions of our country.

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Madam Speaker, one thing is really hypocritical. I was in this chamber with Stephen Harper, and during his regime the Conservatives closed debate over 300 times. They did it on the environment. They did it on unemployment insurance. They did it on defence. They did it on veterans. They did it on a whole series of different issues that we dealt with over a number of years.

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

I am getting heckled, but members can check Stephen Harper's record to find that. It is totally hypocritical.

However, there is a problem with the Liberals. We do not need to put a black light on them to see all the scandal and hypocrisy they have had as well. That is a distraction.

Do you not think you have brought a lot of this on yourself by the behaviour of some of your government people over this tenure? This problem and distraction could have been avoided had you not gotten into this yourself. That is the—

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I remind the member, and all members in the House, to be very careful with the language being used. Members can talk about the parties, but when it comes to individual members it is not acceptable. Also, all comments and questions should be put to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I want to give credit where credit is due in a situation witnessed here this morning. A minister moved forward a very progressive piece of legislation that would assist many Canadians in all regions of this country, and what is worth noting is that the seconder was the leader of the New Democratic Party. In certain ways on certain pieces of legislation, the NDP recognizes the value of Canadians by supporting legislation and is prepared to assist the government in getting important legislation through. I recognize that and thank the NDP for it.

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:40 a.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite spoke about turning the page, but on what?

Is he talking about turning the page on WE? Turning the page on an important report that was to be tabled at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, or on a report that was to be submitted to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women regarding the impacts on women? Turn the page on what?

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, it is not necessarily an issue of turning the page as much as it is one of remaining focused on what Canadians in all regions of our country want us to be focused on: fighting the pandemic and working to ensure that we minimize the negative impacts on our society and economy as a direct result of the things taking place during the pandemic. That is really what the expectation is.

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:40 a.m.

Bloc

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

Madam Speaker, that was a nice try by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government. He was very eloquent as usual.

However, as my colleague pointed out earlier, this is not the first time that this government has been caught in a conflict of interest or apparent conflict of interest. The standard that we should set for ourselves as parliamentarians, and we have a code to keep us on the right track, is that an apparent conflict of interest is just as serious as a real conflict of interest.

That is because it undermines people's trust in the institution of Parliament and in us as elected officials. We must fulfill the mandate they gave us with honour and dignity. When we put ourselves in a position of conflict of interest, it tarnishes the reputation of the entire political class.

When I say that this was a nice try by the parliamentary secretary, it is because his main argument, if I understood correctly, was that we were and are in the midst of an important debate, the debate on the throne speech. However, it seems to me that the prorogation of Parliament was part of that sequence of events. I do not believe that it was necessary to prorogue Parliament to come up with solutions and put everything in place to get through this health crisis.

I would like to remind the parliamentary secretary that, for the past six months, Parliament was forced to discuss only this crisis. However, it seems to me that voters deserve a Parliament that can deal with all governance matters. Obviously, the Ethics Commissioner's decision is final. If it was so urgent to work together to get out of the crisis, why prorogue the session and come back with a throne speech that, quite frankly, provides very few solutions?

That said, I remember WE Charity and the finance minister's resignation, and he is not just anyone. Earlier I was talking about how this is not the first time the Liberals have perhaps not been as forthcoming about conflicts of interest as they should be and about the conflict of interest rules we are supposed to follow. Maybe they were careless? Maybe it was not a priority for them? People who are just a bit nastier or more spiteful than me might say it is in that party's DNA. I would not go that far. I cannot prove it, but I can come up with a list of conflict of interest issues that the Liberal Party itself brought to light. It got itself in trouble.

I remember rising in the House during the previous Parliament to ask the Prime Minister about wealthy Chinese investors in British Columbia making $1,500 contributions to his campaign fund in the riding of Papineau and the fact that he raised $70,000 in just 24 hours. What a coincidence. As it turned out, the real coincidence was that those investors were given a charter for a new bank they wanted to set up.

That is an apparent conflict of interest. Since when has the riding of Papineau or any other Quebec riding raised funds through events purported to have taken place—though this event was never listed—miles and miles away?

We also saw this Prime Minister get himself in trouble for a trip to visit the Aga Khan. This is not the first time.

A Conservative colleague says that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner recommends imposing sanctions on parliamentarians.

I note that in his report, the Ethics Commissioner found that Mr. Peschisolido contravened subsections 20(1) and 21(3) of the Code with regard to the private interests he no longer had in Peschisolido Law Corporation after its administrative dissolution on November 26, 2018. He failed to file an accurate statement of his personal interests during his annual review on December 11, 2018. He also failed to to file a notice of material change within 60 days of the change.

The following four issues were raised: his marital status, his shareholder's loan, his corporation's debt to the bank and the change in status of his law corporation. He had ample time to account for all this. The Ethics Commissioner recommends to the House that a sanction be imposed on the former member. However, today my colleague is moving a motion that asks only for an apology from this former member, surely out of respect for us and the institution we represent.

We have to be thorough and very careful about any apparent or potential conflict of interest. There is a guide. If I were the government parliamentary secretary I think it would be worth calling all members of the House to order.

I do think that an apology is needed, but I did not hear the parliamentary secretary say that he agrees with the motion. Instead, he is questioning the motives of the mover. The substance of the issue is important. Does the parliamentary secretary agree, yes or no, that the former member in question must apologize in writing by way of a letter addressed to the Speaker?

That is what we are debating. It seems that we could have agreed on that quickly and moved on to other things. I am rather disappointed by this approach of saying, “let's work together” except when it comes to respecting our institutions and the codes of conduct that we all supported. No one has risen in the House to say that they are opposed to the conflict of interest guide or to challenge the rule that we must comply with every year.

However, when a problem arises and someone breaks those rules, some members look for red herrings to try to minimize the impact.

The Ethics Commissioner already has a lot on his plate, and his job is not easy. Codes of ethics exist so that people take responsibility prospectively. That means being responsible and anticipating what could happen before it happens. Given that we are representatives of the people, it is not just about recognizing our responsibility after the fact. That is not it at all. Ethics are intended to be prospective. We have a prospective responsibility toward our constituents and this institution.

In this debate, I would expect the speakers on the other side of the House to agree with me and the other parliamentarians who are saying that when someone puts himself in a conflict of interest, that person should recognize it and apologize before we move on to something else.

However, it is unacceptable to say that we are discussing something that is not all that important. That is why I support my Conservative colleague's motion.

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech and salute his remarkable parliamentary experience. He has been here for nearly five years and was also a member of the National Assembly, which is what I wanted to ask him about.

In his vast parliamentary political experience, has the member ever seen a government display such arrogance towards one of the fundamental principles of any parliament, in other words, the opportunity to debate?

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:50 a.m.

Bloc

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

Madam Speaker, to be honest, I have to say yes. That is why parliamentarians often find themselves in a tough situation. People look at us and would prefer democracy to happen in the street. That is why no one can say that what we are talking about this morning is not important. It is very important.

What is at stake this morning is the absolute confidence of those watching us in relation to how we conduct ourselves. We must set an example. In that regard, of course governments often use parliamentary sparring to try to put off those questions. I think some soul-searching is needed, and this morning presents a great opportunity to avoid doing what others would do in the Liberals' position. Some folks like to say that the Liberals and Conservatives are Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

Peschisolido ReportRoutine Proceedings

10:50 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

I am absolutely in favour of this motion, but it is terrible that we are always attacking one another. These problems are a result of the weakness of our ethics rules, especially with regard to pressure from lobbyists.

Does my colleague believe that we should improve our rules?