Sylvie Boucher

[Salaries Act, October 26th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which was very interesting.

I would like to ask him the following question.

Does he think that the Liberal government's weakness is to blame for the fact that they now feel obliged to bolster cabinet with more ministers?

They say they want everyone to have an equal voice. When we ask questions here in the House, maybe they should just be allowed to answer them. Then they would have a voice.

[Ethics, October 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell my colleague that his timing is perfect, because I am really not in a good mood today. When I listen to him, it really makes me angry. We are not here to be told what they did for the middle class or for children, as he claims. We are here to talk about the integrity of the Minister of Finance.

When one carries the finance portfolio and manages millions of dollars that belong to Canadians, the very least one can do is make sure to avoid any conflict of interest. One needs to use common sense. We realized what was going on on this side of the House, as did the media, but unfortunately the Minister of Finance no longer wants to answer them—

[Ethics, October 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, the topic of ethics has come up a lot lately. Today, we witnessed a fine piece of theatre as the Minister of Finance tabled his fall economic statement as a diversion.

I have a good memory, and I am pleased to tell you what we on this side of the aisle have been seeing for almost a month. We believe that all parliamentarians, regardless of professional background, must obey the rules and publicly disclose their private financial interests.

We have repeatedly asked the minister to do so, but unfortunately we have never gotten a straight answer. The finance minister did the right thing last week when he decided to disclose his information, more than two years after taking office. Everyone in the House was under the impression that he had already disclosed his assets and placed them in a blind trust. His colleagues in the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, and the NDP were all convinced that he had already done the right thing two years ago.

Unfortunately for us, in light of certain information, it became apparent that that was not at all the case. In my mind, that is unacceptable. It is unacceptable for such a person, a minister in charge of billions of dollars of public funds and government bonds, a minister responsible for all the government's savings at the Bank of Canada, for hundreds of billions of dollars of mortgage insurance, a minister involved in his government's financial discussions about Barbados. I find it beyond belief that he would not have realized that he had a conflict of interest when he was elected two years ago.

This is the Prime Minister's right-hand man we are talking about. He has access to all the information, he drafted Bill C-27, and he owns assets. I find that unacceptable.

The question we have always asked, that we are still asking today, and that we will continue to ask is the following: did this Minister of Finance recuse himself from discussions that could have placed him in a conflict of interest?

I am asking this question again and I will continue to ask it. If necessary, I will keep asking it for two years. I will continue to ask it until this side of the House receives a clear-cut answer.

[Petitions, October 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition from my constituents about Falun Gong.

[Ethics, October 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it only makes sense for the Minister of Finance to put his holdings in a blind trust.

However, things become unacceptable when the minister puts himself in a conflict of interest, as he did in the file involving the tax agreement with Barbados.

Can he answer the question that is on everyone's lips?

Did the minister recuse himself from the discussions on Barbados or any other file that would open the door to potential conflicts of interest?

[Ethics, October 20th, 2017]

We need a yes or no answer about Bill C-27.

[Éboulements Tragedy, October 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, on October 13, 1997, 43 residents of Saint-Bernard in Beauce were killed at Les Éboulements, which is in my riding, in the deadliest road accident in Canadian history.

The bus carrying members of a seniors club crashed into a ravine at the bottom of the very steep Côte des Éboulements. The 43 victims were very involved in their parish. Despite their passing, their stalwart legacy lives on in future generations.

Twenty years have passed since that tragic day, and our thoughts still turn to those who lost their lives. Two communities were hit hard by the events of that dark day, and they will never be the same again.

Les Éboulements and the rest of Quebec have not forgotten you. We will never forget you.

[Ethics, October 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is sad to see someone like the Minister of Finance think he is beyond reproach.

The Minister of Finance is responsible for the tax treaty between Canada and Barbados. We just learned that he finally decided to show some common sense thanks to our constant pressure. He finally realized that the noose was tightening around his neck and that he was in a conflict of interest.

Before he put his assets in a trust, did he bother to withdraw from any cabinet discussions related to the tax treaty with Barbados?

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, yes or no, will the party opposite vote in favour of our motion? Will the Liberals join us in defending the softwood lumber industry, for once?

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The question I have for him is as straightforward as it gets: yes or no, will you be voting in favour of our motion, and will you be—