Madam Speaker, I want to mention that I will share my speaking time with my distinguished and respected colleague from Timmins—James Bay, who will also certainly have much to say on the matter.
Like me, he has been on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I had the opportunity and honour of serving as chair of that committee when my colleague was an active member on matters of ethics. I can therefore testify to his work and to the work that we did on that committee regarding matters of ethics.
The ethics and integrity of elected officials in our country, the elected officials of this institution, the House of Commons, are a fundamental issue, particularly regarding people who are chosen by the Prime Minister to hold important positions within the government, within the executive, where important decisions are made, as they have repercussions on all of Canadian society. Whether it be the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Defence, the Prime Minister of course, or the Minister of Health, these people make decisions on a daily basis that affect our society. The finance minister makes decisions that are directly related to the financial sector in this country, and sometimes even decisions related to the management of pensions in Canada.
That brings me to the problem raised by many of my colleagues today, the potential conflict of interest that we obviously see with the finance minister's company, which is the subject of the motion being debated today. It is related to statements that he made to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. I have a lot of respect for her. I have had the chance to meet with her and to cross paths with her in the committee I chaired. She came several times to answer questions from parliamentarians regarding ethics and the code that could be modernized; not only the code, in fact, but also the law that applies to public office holders. It is very important to distinguish between the code and the law.
There is a reason we decided to have higher standards for public office holders. Indeed, they make decisions that directly affect our society and our laws. So it is perfectly normal for them to have higher standards regarding ethics and conduct.
The finance minister was questioned. He is the subject of this motion, because his company has direct interests in decisions that the minister makes on a daily basis. That is the big issue today, and it presents a major problem. Whether we talk about tax changes for small and medium enterprises and rules regarding estates, passive assets in companies or income distribution, they are all changes that could potentially have an impact on the minister's own company. Moreover, it can even give the impression that he intentionally avoided affecting his own company and his own assets in the legislative amendments that he published, that he proposed, in a document last July. We are still waiting for definitive answers. Clearly, Canadians and parliamentarians are questioning the finance minister’s real motivations in these matters, and his real intentions behind those changes.
The same goes when we talk about changes to pension plans, as my colleague just mentioned, and the possibility that this is the end of defined benefits pensions. The Minister of Finance has a direct interest in the new pension formula proposed in the framework of this bill, a formula that might be used by private companies across the country. One of the key players in this field, an entity that is prepared to promote such a pension plan, is the Minister of Finance's company.
Of course in this matter as well we question the minister's real interests and true intentions when he sponsors a bill that can have an impact on his own company and his own interests.
I say his own company because we are still not sure who Morneau Shepell belongs to. Obviously, the company bears his name, which is one indication, but questions remain on the identity of the real shareholders of this company because the minister has not shed light on the matter so far. Hence the motion calling on him to table all documents that could shed light on this. He failed to declare all of his interests in this company. He still has not said whether he put his assets in a blind trust, which is another fundamental question.
In Quebec, we might be more attuned to this issue because of our experience with a former political party leader at the National Assembly who also had significant interests in a private company and who could have influenced policy decisions having an impact on his company. Putting assets in a blind trust is the least someone can do to be free of any perceived conflict of interest.
Even if his assets had been placed in a blind trust, the fact remains that the minister will take back the company's reins once he leaves public life, which should be sooner rather than later, in our minds. That raises the question, then, about whether this is the best solution. In my opinion, it is the minimum, but so far, the minister has not confirmed that information.
Although the Liberals thought that the minister had placed his assets in a blind trust, whether he did or not is less clear today. Confusion reigns regarding what is really going on with his business and how much control he has in it.
The whole debate around this matter makes us wonder whether the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister understand what the middle class is. Do they really understand when they talk about taxation and small and medium-sized businesses?
When we hear the Prime Minister say during the election campaign that most small businesses are merely numbered companies used to avoid paying taxes, we have to wonder whether the Liberals really understand the reality facing small and medium-sized businesses and the middle class, even though they pride themselves on being their greatest champions. Do they really understand?
Madam Speaker, when you declare your assets under the conflict of interest code, do you forget a property? Do you forget about some cottage you own somewhere in Canada? Do you forget to mention a chalet in Switzerland? I doubt it. I doubt that most Canadians would forget about their villa in France. I have to question the sincerity of the Minister of Finance when he claims to be the champion of the middle class. He says he wants to protect small and medium-sized businesses at all cost, but he appears to be doing the opposite. This whole debate forces us to question his sincerity, the Prime Minister's sincerity, and what their private holdings actually are.
This is one more example of how far removed policy makers are from regular Canadians. If there is one thing a finance minister can to do alleviate public cynicism towards politicians, it is to fully disclose all of his private holdings. Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance's conduct only feeds this cynicism towards politicians who refuse to obey the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and disclose their information and interests.
It is high time that the Liberals accepted the motion before us today, to finally let the daylight in and dispel any and all doubts as to the true interests of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister.
