Candice Bergen

[Business of the House, October 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by asking the House leader if she could tell us what the business is for the rest of this week and when we return after the Thanksgiving constituency week.

Given that we have been very co-operative over the last two and a half to three weeks and have seen a lot of government legislation move through that period, I am hoping that she will be respectful of some of the bills that we really would like to have ample time to discuss. Bill C-48 was basically shut down after one member spoke to it, which was disappointing. I am hoping that, moving forward, we will be able to press the reset button and that we will be allowed to speak on issues that are important to us.

[Taxation, October 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, here is what we know. The Minister of Finance refuses to recuse himself from discussions around policy that affects Morneau Shepell. We also know that any decision made at the cabinet level seems to benefit Morneau Shepell.

Does the Minister of National Revenue believe that the Minister of Finance, who, by the way, will not tell anybody how many shares he has in Morneau Shepell, that is a big secret, should recuse himself around any discussions about tax havens like those located in Barbados?

[Taxation, October 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it was just this July, when the finance minister was asked about Barbados being a tax haven, when he threw his comment, “we're not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.” Literally at the same time that he was telling entrepreneurs and farmers and small business owners that they were going to have to pay upwards of 73% tax, his baby, Morneau Shepell, was nicely and safely havened in Barbados. What this boils down to is absolute hypocrisy on the part of the government and the finance minister. Why can he not see how unfair this tax grab is?

[Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, October 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in this, and we as a party are offended.

There was an agreement made two and a half weeks ago when this session started that we would work together with the government and not be obstructionist, but work to help pass bills that we were able to support.

The result so far is that the government has passed Bill S-2, C-21, C-47, and Bill C-58 all without time allocation, and progress was being made on three more bills, Bill C-55, C-57, and C-60.

There was one bill that we said we had a lot of interest in and would like to have enough time for all of our members to be able to speak, and that was Bill C-48. Now the House leader has broken her word. There is no other way to interpret this. If this is the way she is going to start this session after we have worked in such good faith for the last two and half weeks, all the members know that it will be a case of here we go again: a repeat of the failure we saw in the spring session.

Where in the world is the House leader's integrity and ability to keep her word?

[Taxation, October 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we know the minister has had a tough weekend, so he may have forgotten that he committed to abstain from any discussions surrounding Morneau Shepell.

We have heard from expert testimony that the Liberal tax changes will benefit companies that provide individual pension plans, plans that Morneau Shepell provides.

Why did the Minister of Finance not abstain from these discussions, or is he like the Prime Minister and he thinks the rules just do not apply to him?

[Taxation, October 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the consultation period on the unfair Liberal tax changes is coming to an end. While many questions are unanswered, what is clear is that companies like Morneau Shepell will be sheltered from these tax increases and, specifically, Morneau Shepell will benefit from these tax changes. Going after small businesses while protecting one's own investment is hypocritical.

Does the Minister of Finance not see that this decision appears to put him in a direct conflict of interest?

[Business of the House, September 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, you may recall that last week I asked the government House leader if we would have an opportunity to have a supply day so that we could discuss some of the important issues that are affecting Canadians.

We know what we are all hearing about, so this week we asked the government, because it had not given us any opposition days over the last two weeks, if we could possibly have a take-note debate. At this point in the last Parliament, we had already had nine take-note debates, whereas in our current Parliament we have had only two, so there was a reason to grant us the take-note debate. That was not allowed, so we have had no opportunity. Basically, members of Parliament have been completely shut out of the consultation process on these tax changes that are so fiercely impacting and concerning Canadians right across the country.

I would ask the government House leader if she or her representative would be able to tell us what the upcoming business is and if we would be able to have a supply day so we we can discuss some of these important issues.

[Ethics, September 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is non-answers like that that are causing Canadians to become suspicious. It is clear that Morneau Shepell has a very clear opportunity to benefit from these changes. The minister told Canadians in writing that he would recuse himself from any discussions surrounding Morneau Shepell.

Again I ask the minister this. Why did he not recuse himself when discussions around these tax changes came up, when they so clearly affect his family company?

[Ethics, September 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance committed in writing “to abstain from any participation in any matters or decisions...relating to Morneau Shepell”. Today, experts told the finance committee that, as a result of the Liberal changes, the finance minister's changes, individual pension plans will become more popular and more used. A witness also said that the minister's family company, Morneau Shepell, provides individual pension plans to Canadians. Why did the minister not recuse himself from discussions surrounding these changes?

[Taxation, September 27th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, there is a pattern with the Prime Minister talking about himself. He takes away child care benefits from families across Canada, saying wealthy families like his do not need help with their child care. Then he gets two full-time nannies paid for by, guess who, the taxpayer. He then says the rich should pay more, and he taxes all of our local businesses while his investment is protected.

Why is the Prime Minister always creating policy that protects him, and making hard-working Canadians pay his bills?