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.