John Brassard

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question, one that again calls into question the Prime Minister's own ethical standards that he set for his ministers.

If in fact these types of things are happening, Canadians rightly have a reason to be concerned. What they should be concerned about is what is going on within the government. Are friends, cronies, and Liberal stakeholders benefiting from the fact that the Liberal government has taken over?

I would suggest that it is back to the future, and we are seeing what happened in those years of Liberal cronyism. I am concerned about it, and not just as a parliamentarian; I am concerned about it as an individual Canadian.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, that is a fair question on the part of the hon. member.

If we look at what the Ethics Commissioner said subsequent to the ruling, she herself is not happy with the rules. She says that the rules should be looked at.

What is important here, and we are going to hear this all day, as we have heard it all morning, is the fact that it is the Prime Minister's own accountability in this situation that is being called into question. I gave various examples from the Prime Minister's own page, the expectations of his ministers, the “Open and Accountable Government” website, where it says very clearly in annex B:

Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must avoid conflict of interest, the appearance of conflict of interest and situations that have the potential to involve conflicts of interest.

That was not the Ethics Commissioner who wrote that. That was the Liberal government. That was the Prime Minister of our country who made that very clear to his ministers.

I would ask the hon. member subsequent to what he asked me, which part of that did not happen in this case?

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte for sharing his time with me today.

Before I get to the formal part of my remarks, I want to introduce Mr. George Taylor. For those in the House who do not know Mr. Taylor, he was a resident of Barrie and is the former solicitor general in the province of Ontario. I am sure you would know him, Mr. Speaker. He is a well-respected former member of the provincial legislature in Ontario.

Just last week on Facebook, Mr. Taylor weighed in on this debate. What he had to say on Facebook was quite interesting and quite telling. I corresponded with Mr. Taylor when I was a city councillor in Barrie. I never had the chance to meet him face to face. He is an honourable man, a man of great conviction, and a man who is well respected.

Mr. Taylor wrote on Facebook, “The Minister of Justice must have missed the conflict of interest course, as did the Ethics Commissioner, to conclude the attendance of a Tory law firm dinner, as she has said to CBC, that she was there as the MP for B.C. Law firms do not ask MPs to dinner. MPs do not appoint judges. They do not grant QCs. They give out great amounts of legal work and determine who to prosecute. The Minister of Justice is to be more independent than other ministers. She will have to learn more about her duties. You are never not a minister.”

Those are wise words from a well-respected man.

I was at the epicentre of this issue when it started taking root. It became a regional issue. I was called to CBC on Tuesday, April 5, to comment about this issue taking place. I was not sure what it was about on my way there, but I was certainly briefed on the issue. When I walked into the CBC building, I was told by a producer that I was going to be interviewed by Mr. Terry Milewski. We knew that this story was going to have legs. We knew that it was going to be one of the lead stories on CBC. As it turned out, it was.

I asked Mr. Milewski what angle he was taking on the story. Quite clearly he told me that he had received an email from someone stating that there was an event to take place with the Minister of Justice at a law firm and that it was, in effect, a secret meeting. There were no formal invitations sent out. In fact, the email reminded people to pay for the event, $500 a ticket as we found out, by going to the Liberal Party of Canada website. However, in searching for the website, there was actually no page. There was a link that led to the website. That was the angle he was taking on the story.

What was interesting about that was the fact that there was a regional component to this. At that time, the controversy in Ontario was breaking out with the Wynne government. We were finding out then about the pay-to-play scenarios that were going on, where cabinet ministers in the Ontario Liberal government were asked to find donors, some of them up to $5,000 each, to attend functions where cabinet ministers would attend. This sounded eerily similar to what was going on in Ontario.

Should it have surprised anyone that this in fact was going on? The reason I say that is it is quite clear now that the same players who are running the Prime Minister's office were the ones who were running the premier's office, both Premier Wynne's and McGuinty's office. It should come as no surprise to any Canadian, and it should come as no surprise to anyone in the House, that this is now happening at the federal level.

I know it is not germane to what we are discussing here, but it should come as no surprise that we are starting to see the debt and deficit situations happen federally that we have seen in Ontario, because the Liberals now have access to a bigger piggy bank and they will surely go at it.

What is interesting and I think is the root of what this whole debate is about, which my hon. colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe spoke about, is that on the Prime Minister's own page it states:

For Canadians to trust our government we must trust Canadians, and we will only be successful in implementing our agenda to the extent that we earn and keep this trust.

To be worthy of Canadians’ trust, we must always act with integrity. [...] As Ministers, you and your staff must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality, and both the performance of your official duties and the arrangement of your private affairs should bear the closest public scrutiny. This is an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.

The Prime Minister goes on to state:

I draw your attention in particular to areas of the guide that we have expanded or strengthened for our mandate, including the guidance on non-partisan use of departmental communications resources in Annex G;

When we look at the government's website and the document entitled “Open and Accountable Government”, which was one of the tenets that the Liberals sold Canadians on during the last election, that they would truly be open and accountable, it states:

Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must avoid conflict of interest, the appearance of conflict of interest and situations that have the potential to involve conflicts of interest. [...]

Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must ensure that political fundraising activities or considerations do not affect, or appear to affect, the exercise of their official duties or the access of individuals or organizations to government. [...]

Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries should not seek to have departmental stakeholders included on fundraising or campaign teams or on the boards of electoral district associations.

It goes on and on, and speaks to the issue of government ministers being held to a higher standard, as with all governments, in the areas of perceived or real conflicts of interest.

I know that the members opposite will say that it has been cleared by the Ethics Commissioner. We have seen the government House leader stand up time and again in the House and defend the justice minister. For whatever reason, the justice minister is not in a position to defend herself or does not feel that she should be defending herself. Rather, it is the government House leader who is doing that. However, it goes back to the root of the issue, which is the perception of it.

As my hon. colleague from Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte said, it does not pass the smell test. It is that question that I was asked on CBC. It does not pass the smell test. I think most Canadians would feel that way. This is about open and accountable government.

It is clear that we have gone back in time to when the Chrétien Liberals were in government. The Liberals are simply paying lip service to Canadians and to this House about their commitment to a high standard of ethical conduct. I am holding out hope that the minister and the Liberal government will do the right thing for Canadians, which is to agree with our motion today, return the money, and apologize for attending the event.

In conclusion, because I believe it is worth repeating, I will repeat what Mr. Taylor, the former solicitor general of this province, said. He stated, “The Minister of Justice is more independent than other ministers. She will have to learn of her duties, you are never not a minister.”

That night, the Minister of Justice attended that fundraising event with one of the largest law firms in the country, which has registered lobbyists who lobby on behalf of organizations right across this country, and who will deal with the justice department and the Attorney General of this country. I suggest to this House that she was a minister that night and she should apologize for her actions and give the money back.

[National Volunteer Week, April 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, in recognition of National Volunteer Week, tomorrow the town of lnnisfil is hosting their annual community volunteer appreciation BBQ. I have the honour of attending this wonderful event with Mayor Gord Wauchope, Deputy Mayor Lynn Dollin and members of lnnisfil Council.

This is the first year lnnisfil will be awarding a community volunteer award, and the recipient will be Pastor Howard Courtney on behalf of lnnisfil Community Church. Pastor Courtney's leadership on numerous programs, including the food bank, the clothing depot, seniors programming, youth mentoring, and adult life groups has been simply amazing.

Volunteers in Canada devote approximately two billion hours annually, which is equivalent to about one million full-time jobs. Volunteering has a direct impact on the lives of Canadians, whether it is mentoring children, providing health care, or supporting and giving companionship.

Pastor Courtney is well deserving of this tribute, and lnnisfil is incredibly lucky to have him in the community.

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his comments. One of the things he talked about was a lack of a jobs plan.

I would remind the House that 1.3 million net new jobs were created, and the current government, with this plan, is on track to make the employment insurance system the largest employer in this country.

Given the member's history in the House, what would he suggest that the government do to create a jobs plan for this country to get Canadians to work?

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I find it curious that the member started off her statement with a reference to the Newfoundland and Labrador budget today, and that she expressed her extreme confidence in that government do the right thing.

In the statement today in the Newfound legislature, this is what the premier's finance minister said, “The previous government’s willingness to mortgage our future has left our province facing the biggest deficit and highest net debt ever recorded in our history.” I will remind the House and the hon. members on the opposite side that we in fact did leave a budget surplus, as evidenced by the “Fiscal Monitor”.

When the member speaks of confidence, these were the measures in today's budget: 16.5¢ a litre increase in the gas tax in Newfoundland as of June; $900 income-based levy on all taxpayers ; HST, up by 2%; average families paying $3,000 more in tax; income tax brackets going up in every income level; corporate tax rates increasing up to 15%; and class sizes also increasing in Newfoundland and Labrador in grades four to twelve.

Is that confidence in the government that the member spoke about an example of the foreshadowing that all Canadians will see with future budgets?

[The Budget, April 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, could the hon. member comment on the middle-class tax cut? Some would say it is probably the biggest fraud of this budget. However, I certainly would not use such harsh language.

There are 1.6 million families that make $48,000 to $62,000 a year. On average, those families will see a middle-class tax cut of about $51. It goes up incrementally. Those making $62,000 to $78,000 will see about $117, from $124,000 to $166,000 about $521, and from $166,000 to $211,000 about $813.

Granted the top 1% of $211,000 will see an increase of $2,912. However, as we have found out from the parliamentary budget officer, there is a $1.3 billion deficit this year and an $8.9 billion deficit over six years.

How does he and the members of the Liberal caucus feel about giving themselves a bigger tax decrease than those 1.6 million families who are making $48,000 to $62,000 a year?

[The Budget, April 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked about a lot of things in his speech, a lot of promises, which we now know as broken Liberal promises. One was with respect to the middle-class tax cut. He said that the Liberals were going to lower taxes on the middle class and ask the top 1% to pay a little more. It turns out that all Canadians will be paying a lot more because, according to the figures of the parliamentary budget officer, there is a $1.3-billion deficit for this year alone, which means Canadian taxpayers will have to pay that, and $8.9 billion over six years.

I would ask the hon. member how he explains that broken campaign promise to the people in his riding.

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I wish I was at a point where I could answer in French. I am working very hard on it and will get to that point, but I will answer in English.

The question that the hon. member asked is an important one. What we have seen with this so-called middle-class tax break is a real shell game. The hon. member talks about the $40,000 range. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that the ones who will benefit the most from the middle-class tax break are actually upper-middle-class Canadians. In my response to the middle-class tax break, I used a figure from the Centre for Policy Alternatives that showed that members of Parliament actually receive more of a tax break, a more significant amount of money, than those making $40,000, so it is, in fact, a shell game.

Liberals are talking about the middle-class tax cuts but are taking away programs such as the children's fitness tax credit and the arts tax credit. Canadians have been benefiting from those tax credits to the tune of $1.9 billion. It is the same thing with income splitting for families, something that I was able to take advantage of. Canadians have benefited from that tax break in the amount of $1.9 billion.

What the Liberals are giving, the Liberals are taking away. What the Liberals are taking away and adding more onto are what our kids and grandkids, middle-class Canadians, will be paying for going forward in the long term.

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure there was a question there, but I will show the member the due respect that should be shown in the House for each individual member and not ramble on with my answer.

However, I will say that what Canadians voted for was not the plan that the Liberals are putting forward. The Liberals have put forward a $10 billion plan. Granted, that was their plan and it was not the Conservative plan, but they exceeded that by almost three times. I would suggest that what the Liberals propose is not what was sold to Canadians, as I said in my statement.

The other thing I would suggest, which I know Liberals want to deny, is that clearly the independent finance department shows that there was a surplus—a surplus—in the month of January of close to $4.3 billion. They continue to deny this. The fact is that they have taken that surplus and have now made it vanish. That is the unfortunate reality, and those are the terms that the Liberals will have to come to live by.