Lisa Raitt

[Taxation, December 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the minister does not speak for me or for what I am concerned about. What I am concerned about is this. There are details severely lacking in the implementation of these tax changes.

I have great friends, Jim and Tina Tsouros. They run the best donair place in Milton, Ontario. They will wake up on January 1 of next year and they will have no idea what these changes are and how they will impact their lives.

Will the Minister of Finance show business owners like Jim and Tina the respect they deserve and provide them the plan.

[Taxation, December 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, while the finance minister's ill-conceived tax plan has resoundingly been rejected by Canadians across the country, we are still less than a month away from full implementation of this process and we do not know what these new rules will mean to hard-working Canadians.

The government has proposed significant changes to the tax system for small businesses. They do not know how it will impact them on January 1. Is this fair?

[Ethics, December 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is for sure. The Minister of Finance will be answering a lot more questions of the Ethics Commissioner in the coming days, because she now has launched yet another inquiry. This time she would like to discuss with the minister the timely sale of 680,000 shares in Morneau Shepell, which happened on November 30, because this actually was of value to the seller to the tune of half a million dollars.

My question is simple, and I think it is the one the Ethics Commissioner will be asking. Was it the minister's 680,000 shares that were sold on November 30?

[Ethics, December 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, if the Ethics Commissioner gave her recommendations to the Minister of Finance, why is she now investigating him in three different cases?

Just days after the minister was found not to be in compliance, the Ethics Commissioner actually opened up yet another investigation. This time it has to do with whether he should have introduced Bill C-27, specifically since it would have directly benefited his family business. Again, this is another investigation of another conflict. How many more investigations must there be for this minister to step aside?

[Ethics, December 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wrote the Minister of Finance that “As Minister, you must ensure that you are aware of and fully compliant with the Conflict of Interest Act”. However, the minister was fined by the Ethics Commissioner for not being in compliance with the ethics act. I wonder if the minister realizes that he has failed the most basic, fundamental requirement of his mandate letter and the express desire of the Prime Minister.

My question is simple. Why is he still minister?

[Canada Revenue Agency, November 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Revenue Agency and the minister have repeatedly promised an independent investigation into those evading taxes, those who, through the paradise papers, have become apparent.

The Prime Minister compromised this investigation when he waded into the Bronfman affair. He was so fast to exonerate his buddy, but the truth can no longer be denied.

Will the Prime Minister allow the CRA to do its job and investigate his friend, or is this just another case of one rule for the Liberals and another one for the rest of us?

[Canada Revenue Agency, November 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of investigations, the Prime Minister was not the only one to rush to defend Mr. Bronfman. The Liberal Party jumped on board, and in doing so it actually misled Canadians. It said in its statement, “Stephen Bronfman had no other direct or indirect involvement whatsoever in the Kolber Trust.” Now that we know the truth, could the minister confirm that Mr. Bronfman is now under one of the many investigations at the CRA?

[Canada Revenue Agency, November 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's close friend, Stephen Bronfman, evaded paying taxes when he stashed away more than $60 million in sheltered offshore accounts. When these revelations came to light a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister rushed to defend his top fundraiser, saying he was satisfied with the assurances that he received from Mr. Bronfman.

We now know for certain that Bronfman was in fact directly linked to the trusts. What assurances did Mr. Bronfman give to the Prime Minister, and is he still satisfied?

[Ethics, November 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my issue with the minister's responses is that every time he hears the fact that he broke the compliance standards, he assumes it is a personal attack, and it is not. We are just asking him to be accountable for his actions. The mandate tracker says: “you 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.”

Is anyone able to trust the minister when we know that in his personal affairs, he has broken it?

[Ethics, November 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the interesting part about making promises like the minister is just making is that he has to be trusted to deliver on them, and that is what we are talking about today. The Prime Minister set out his new mandate tracker last week and actually reiterated directives. The quote regarding the finance minister is that “As Minister, you must ensure that you are aware of and fully compliant with the Conflict of Interest Act”.

The Minister of Finance has already been fined for not being in compliance with the ethics act. Given that the minister was found not to be in compliance with it, what is the Prime Minister going to do to ensure that his directive is enforced?