Guy Caron

[Access to Information, November 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, “Failing to Strike the Right Balance for Transparency” is the punchy title of the Information Commissioner's report, which indicates that the Liberals are once again breaking their relatively clear election promise to make representatives of the Prime Minister's Office and other ministers' offices subject to the Access to Information Act.

They could have accomplished that with Bill C-58, but the bill falls far short of the mark.

Why is the Prime Minister backtracking rather than forming a government that is truly open and transparent?

[Ethics, November 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that during the Senate expense scandal in 2013 the current Prime Minister tweeted, “Conservative ethics abuses have shaken Canadians' faith in Parliament. It's time to #raisethebar on accountability”.

After the cash for access scandal, the investigation into the Prime Minister's vacation on the Aga Khan's private island, and the scandal involving his finance minister and Bill C-27, does the Prime Minister still believe that he did “#raisethebar” on accountability?

[Ethics, November 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we have the utmost respect for the commissioner, but here is the thing: she cannot block those loopholes. The government could, and chooses to block efforts to do so.

The Prime Minister might think otherwise, but Canadians' trust has been betrayed by the finance minister's ethical failings. Someone once said, “The Prime Minister has to show leadership and take responsibility for the actions of the people he chose.” Who said that, one might ask? It was this very Prime Minister during the Duffy scandal.

Clearly, the Prime Minister does not understand what a conflict of interest is. Does he also need help understanding leadership and responsibility?

[India, November 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, “It was not riot, it was genocide”. These are the words of Rajnath Singh, India's home minister.

Today, and for the next three days, Sikh Canadians and human rights advocates will mark the 33rd anniversary of the 1984 Sikh genocide. Sikh men were burned alive. Women were subject to unthinkable sexual violence, and children were murdered in gruesome fashion. Many, including former Indian Supreme Court justice G.T. Nanavati, have pointed out that state resources were instrumental in these premeditated killings.

I am reminded that thousands of Canadians live with this pain as survivors and bearers of intergenerational trauma. Both the Delhi Assembly and the Ontario legislature have recognized these atrocities as genocide. I stand in this place in hope that someday soon, the House of Commons and this government will do the same.

The path to reconciliation will not be easy, but for the victims and survivors, today we remember.

[The Environment, October 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves. The commissioner of the environment confirmed it in her report a few weeks ago. Now the UN's head of the environment is also sounding the alarm with regard to the need to reduce greenhouse gases.

The Liberals adopted Stephen Harper's weak reduction targets and, obviously, contrary to what the Prime Minister said, the Liberals will not meet the Copenhagen targets or even the Paris targets. Canadians deserve a real plan to combat climate change.

When will the government present such a plan?

[Ethics, October 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my problem with this defence is the fact that, when Liberals campaigned, they asked Canadians to vote for them because they were nothing like the Conservatives, and now they are saying not to blame them because they are doing what the Conservatives did before.

My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley had a motion adopted yesterday at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to invite the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to discuss the changes that will be needed to close the loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act. We moved the motion last week and the Liberals voted against it. Everyone agrees that the loophole is a problem.

When will the Prime Minister finally come around to closing it?

[Ethics, October 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner wrote to us to say that she too had concerns about the fact that the Minister of Finance is sponsoring Bill C-27, a bill that benefits Morneau Shepell. It would be as if the Minister of Natural Resources owned an oil or gas company. That minister would be in a conflict of interest.

My question is this: Could the ministers identified by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner also be in a conflict of interest?

[Ethics, October 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, last week they threw the Ethics Commissioner under the bus. Today they are hiding behind her.

The fact is, they cannot enforce the bare minimum standard of ethics. Five ministers are benefiting from this loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act, and last week the government voted against the NDP's proposal to close that loophole. Now that we know multiple Liberal cabinet ministers are benefiting from the loophole, maybe the Prime Minister would like to reconsider his position. Will the Prime Minister take the Ethics Commissioner's advice and close the loophole?

[Ethics, October 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, there might be something broken with this device because every time the Prime Minister speaks all I keep hearing is, “We're entitled to our entitlements”.

The Ethics Commissioner actually said that other ministers, other than the finance minister, could have benefited from those loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act. For a Prime Minister who said he would be enforcing the highest standards for his ministers, we are seeing that he cannot even keep the bare minimum.

I have a very simple question, once again, for the Prime Minister. Who are the other ministers identified by the commissioner?

[Ethics, October 26th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps talking about a higher standard of ethics. Let us see how it fares.

In 2002, the national defence minister had to step down from the Liberal cabinet for giving his ex-girlfriend a $36,500 contract. That same year, the solicitor general had to step down from the Liberal cabinet for awarding a $6.5-million contract to a college presided by his brother.

Shares in Morneau Shepell, including the one million or two million shares held by the Minister of Finance, went up by nearly 5% after Bill C-27 was introduced.

How can he deny that this is a conflict of interest? What is his definition of—