Most toxic speeches
Shame on you, Bill, you're being dishonest. You're being very dishonest.
It is actually laughable, Mr. Speaker, to hear the finance minister talking about counting, because the thing he has been counting since he became the finance minister is the mountain of cash that he has made off Morneau Shepell shares and dividends. The Prime Minister does have a problem. He either agrees that the Ethics Commissioner is right that the finance minister broke the law, or he disagrees with her and says everything is fine. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot suck and blow at the same time. The finance minister has been found guilty and fined by the Ethics Commissioner. How could the finance minister betray the trust of Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has placed the Ethics Commissioner in an impossible position, first by withholding information from the commissioner, then by claiming that she supported everything he did, but she fined him for not complying with the act. Instead of insulting MPs and insinuating that female elected representatives cannot do math, why does the finance minister not just come clean and answer the questions?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is blaming everybody but the finance minister or himself for the scandal that is before us. The Prime Minister is all but directly blaming the Ethics Commissioner, blaming the Ethics Commissioner for the finance minister's several inexcusable lapses of judgment and for the Prime Minister's own willingness to look the other way.Why is the Prime Minister misleading Parliament about other ministers' actions? Is the Prime Minister's Office calling the Ethics Commissioner a liar?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise my point of order at this point, before I go on with the Thursday question.I rise on a point of order regarding comments just made during question period. The Minister of Finance said directly that our deputy leader did not know how to count. Our deputy leader has been a member of Parliament here for nine years. She has a law degree from Osgoode Hall Law School. She has been a CEO. She clearly knows how to count, and so much more. These are some of the reasons, many times, women do not want to get involved in the political process. When maybe things are tough, insults like thatBimbo, You don't know how to count, You're not smart, You're a puppetare hurled at women politicians and at women in general. I hope that is not what the Minister of Finance was trying to do, but I would like to give him the opportunity to apologize to our very qualified, very smart, and very capable deputy House leader.
Mr. Speaker, it has been exactly one year since Parliament ordered the Liberal government to stop defying the Human Rights Tribunal and immediately flow that $155-million shortfall on child welfare. The government refused, saying that it would be like throwing confetti. No, it is about protecting children like 12-year-old Amy Owen, who, before she died wrote on Facebook, I am just a kid and my life is a nightmare.To the minister, stop defending the same feeble funding formula for child welfare established by Stephen Harper. Why will the minister refuse to flow that money that was ordered by the Parliament of Canada?
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister did not go further. He was fined by the Ethics Commissioner for breaking the rules. Instead of owning up to it, he is clearly irritated and throwing insults. I think the finance minister may need a little break at his French villa over the next few weeks.Seriously, this is a very serious issue when the Minister of Finance is hiding assets. I have a simple question. No insults, please. What else is the finance minister hiding in his other numbered companies?
That is coming from the party of the sponsorship scandal, Mr. Speaker. The Information Commissioner dropped a bombshell yesterday. The Liberals' new no access to information bill, Bill C-58, will make things even worse than they were under Stephen Harper and Jean Chrétien. Ethics, cash for access, and open government were all promises made, and all promises that were broken. From the sponsorship scandal to missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls, all of this came to light through access to information.Will the minister listen to civil society, immigration groups, and first nations, and fix this bad bill?
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is the hon. member for Toronto Centre, but it is not honourable to suggest that our deputy leader cannot count. It is not honourable to suggest that our finance critic is obtuse. It is not honourable for the member to deny his own mistakes and his own omissions. When will the hon. member do the right thing and apologize to Canadians for his mistakes?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the opposition was levelling baseless accusations. Today, the Liberals are accusing the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner of providing false information about their own minister's situation. I wonder who are the ones making baseless accusations in the House.My question is simple: now that we know that his finance minister is in a direct conflict of interest, I would like to know why the Prime Minister misled Parliament and all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, are these ethical standards if the Liberals cannot even enforce the bare minimum they should be following?The Prime Minister is showing his contempt for the House, which is calling for explanations for his ethical lapses and those of his government.However, the facts are clear. This Prime Minister is still under investigation for his trip to the Aga Khan's private island. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has identified one, two, three, four minsters who are using the loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act.The commissioner is also concerned about the role the minister played in Bill C-27. This government said that it would live up to the highest ethical standards.Why then can the government not even enforce the bare minimum?
Mr. Speaker, displacing artifacts like that and bringing them here is an outrage.Bill C-63 revealed that the government wants to start taxing pot. That is another way of stirring up trouble in Quebec and lining their own pockets. We know that Quebec, not Ottawa, will have to pick up the tab for costs related to health and security. Will the government promise to leave that money to Quebec, or will it once again try to line its own pockets without even doing a thing?
Mr. Speaker, I know the finance minister is getting irritated by the process of accountability around this place, but he did not reveal all of his assets to the Ethics Commissioner; he kept hidden his offshore company in France. That is why she found him in violation of the law and required that he pay a punitive fine. Now he is hiding other assets within different holding companies. He could make these questions go away if he would simply tell Canadians what he is hiding in his vast network of numbered companies and trust funds.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his work and his tireless efforts in this matter. Like him, I was extremely disappointed yesterday when I heard the opposition leader's outdated belief. Unlike the Conservatives, our government is actually supporting law enforcement where it matters. Rather than prosecuting those with mental health and addiction issues, we are disrupting illegal drugs at the border and diverting people out of the criminal justice system.With Bill C-37 and C-224, our government is taking a compassionate, evidence-based approach to reduce barriers to treatment and encourage innovative measures to prevent overdoses and save lives.
Mr. Speaker, exactly no one in first nation communities believes what the minister just said. Liberals seem to have invented a whole new game. It is called Ethics Bingo. How many Liberals have secret numbered companies they have not told Canadians about? Is it one? Yes, there is one. Is it two? Oh yes, at least two. Is it three? Tell me when I get to the right one and we can all yell bingo together. Enough with the games. Here are the Prime Minister's pre-end zone instructions to his ministers: ...you must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality...and the arrangement of your private affairs should bear the closest public scrutiny. When are they actually going to live up to those words, or are they just meaningless words written on paper?
Mr. Speaker, one thing we can all agree on is that the Minister of Finance needs help in one thing in counting: he better count on getting some better communications advice.The Prime Minister said this week: ...I am not trying to blame the Ethics Commissioner, I am trying to trust the Ethics Commissioner. That is what opposition members need to do. That is exactly what we are doing as well. After weeks of misleading and memory lapses, the Government of Canada has shown that it does not trust the Ethics Commissioner, but I think Canadians actually do.The minister put himself in a direct conflict, and he broke the law when he failed to disclose
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in this chamber, I had a member of the opposition come over to tell me not to take it personally because what happens here is just a game. For our government it is absolutely not a game. We are working to improve the lives of Canadians. For those 300,000 children who are being lifted out of poverty, for their parents, it is intensely personal. They care about our country and they care about their families.We will not play the games of the opposition. We are going to work on behalf of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, marijuana growers in my riding of KootenayColumbia have formed a co-op to advance their rights. They are concerned that the government will not license growers who farm outdoors and that licensing will go only to large corporate indoor growers. Indeed, Liberals on the health committee already voted down an NDP motion to allow provinces to develop production regimes that would support local economies.As the government moves to legalize the recreational use of cannabis, will it stand with and support economically important, small-scale outdoor farmers across Canada and ensure that they have a future, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, after more than 30 years, we are the first government to modernize the Access to Information Act, and we are applying it to ministers' offices through proactive disclosure. I understand why the NDP does not like proactive disclosure. When we were in opposition and the Prime Minister was the leader of the Liberals in opposition, he led the charge on proactive disclosure of MPs' expenses. The Conservatives signed on to it quite quickly, but the NDP members were dragged kicking and screaming to disclose their expenses to the Canadian public. They did not like proactive disclosure then, and they do not like it today.
Mr. Speaker, our government has introduced a comprehensive framework for the strict regulation of the production, distribution, and consumption of cannabis. We have been working collaboratively with our provincial and territorial partners. Health Canada administers a very effective system of licensing for those who meet the requirements of that regulation to ensure that what will be consumed by Canadians is of known potency and purity. Those rules are important for the health and safety of all Canadians, and we will continue to promote them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring to your attention a grave and disturbing matter that occurred yesterday while riding the House of Commons bus. I stand with a very heavy heart for this point of order because it was exactly for that reason I went into politics, to be a voice for the most vulnerable and fight for the rights of women, especially immigrant women, and bring their voice to Ottawa to fight against racism, agism, and sexism.Now I will state the facts. I was sitting on an outside seat when the member for SpadinaFort York entered the bus. The member stopped and hovered over me. He began to wave his hand in my face, chastised and intimidated me for something I said in the House earlier in the day. Yesterday, during question period, the Prime Minister was giving one of his non-answers to a question about the government transferring up to half a billion dollars into the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, while at the same time the PBO reported the government was behind on infrastructure spending within Canada. With great emotion and pride, I said Canada is our home. For some reason, the member took issue with my statement and began to intimidate me for raising it, making suggestions to alternative statements I could have made. I did not have time to give you the proper notice of a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, but I reserve the right to do so. I do so for the following reasons. Responding to threats was among the first matters of parliamentary privilege dealt with in Canada. Page 198 of the second edition of Joseph Maginot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada tells us of an incident in 1758 where the Nova Scotia House of Assembly proceeded against someone who made threats against a member. In a ruling on September 19, 1973, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, at page 6709 of the Debates, stated that he had: no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats and attempts at intimidation. Mr. Speaker Bosley, on May 16, 1986, at page 13362 of Debates, ruled that the threat or attempt to intimidate could not be hypothetical, but that it must be real or have occurred. I have a whole bus of passengers who witnessed this whole incident.On March 24, 1994, at page 2705 of Debates, Mr. Speaker Parent said: Threats of blackmail or intimidation of a member of Parliament should never be taken lightly. When such occurs, the very essence of free speech is undermined. Without the guarantee of freedom of speech, no member of Parliament can do his duty as expected. This attempt to intimidate me was directly linked to what I said in the House earlier in the day, and that, Mr. Speaker, should be grounds enough to warrant a favourable ruling for a question of privilege.Hiding behind a prime minister who claims to be a feminist does not give the member the right to intimidate another member of the same House of another party. Female members of all three parties were on the bus. They witnessed everything he did and how he intimidated me. Therefore, I reserve the right for a question of privilege with proper notice.
Mr. Speaker, our strategy is to continue improving the lives of Canadian families and the middle class across the country. That is what matters. That is why we introduced the Canada child benefit, which makes life better for 300,000 children. That is why we improved the working income tax benefit for Canadians who are seriously struggling. We will continue to work for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, what I can say to the member opposite is: wrong again.What happened here is that I disclosed all of my assets, and in fact there was an administrative error that we satisfied the commissioner with the $200 fine I paid. We are trying to work to help Canadians and not play the games that the members opposite are trying to play, because we know that was what we were elected to do. For all of those Canadians who looked at what we announced last week, the level of growth our country is seeing, and the improvements we are going to make in the Canada child benefit and the working income tax benefit, we are going to tell them that we are working for them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the issue of contradictory information given to members regarding the number of cabinet ministers who are currently using a conflict of interest loophole to avoid divesting personal investments or putting them in a blind trust. This contradictory information has been provided by an officer of Parliament, the Ethics Commissioner, and by the Prime Minister. The Ethics Commissioner has said that a number of Liberal cabinet ministers hold controlled assets indirectly, but the Prime Minister contends that only the finance minister does and that he is now in the process of selling shares in Morneau Shepell and setting up a blind trust in the meantime. When pressed to clarify if the Prime Minister was correct in his assertion that the Minister of Finance is the lone minister exploiting a loophole, Ms. Dawson's office confirmed via an email from her spokesperson, Jocelyne Brisebois, which states: The Office still maintains that there are fewer than five ministers who have controlled assets and no we were not wrong about the information provided in our statement to you. We can say fewer than five ministers, including [the finance minister]. That is, she says the commissioner's office was not wrong.However, on Tuesday, the Prime Minister insisted in the Commons that the finance minister is the only one of his 30 ministers who is currently exploiting this loophole. On page 111 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May, it states that, The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.On February 1, 2002, the Speaker then ruled on a matter in regard to the former minister of national defence: The hon. member for PortageLisgar alleged that the Minister of National Defence deliberately misled the House as to when he knew that prisoners taken by Canadian JTF2 troops in Afghanistan had been handed over to the Americans. In support of that allegation, he cited the minister's responses in question period on two successive days... The Speaker considered the matter and found there was a prima facie question of privilege. He said: The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House. The authorities to which Speaker Milliken was referring include but are not limited to the following. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 115, Misleading a Minister or a Member has also been considered a form of obstruction and thus a prima facie breach of privilege.When the Speaker, in 2002, accepted the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House, he stated that Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation. The Speaker then referred to the first edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 67: There are...affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges...the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; [or that] obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties... The Speaker went on to say: On the basis of the arguments presented by hon. members and in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. I therefore invite the hon. member for PortageLisgar to move his motion. On February 17, 2011, the member for ScarboroughGuildwood and other members argued that a minister had made statements in committee that were different from those made in the House or provided to the House in written form. These members argued that the material available showed that contradictory information had been provided. As a result, they argued that this demonstrated that the minister deliberately misled the House and that as such a prima facie case of privilege existed.In a ruling of March 9, 2011, the Speaker then pointed out: ...when asked who inserted the word not in the assessment of the KAIROS funding application, in testimony [before the committee] the minister twice replied that she did not know. In a February 14 statement to the House, while she did not indicate that she knew who inserted the word not, the minister addressed this matter by stating that the not was inserted at her direction. At the very least, it can be said that this has caused confusion. The minister has acknowledged this, and has characterized her own handling of the matter as unfortunate. Yet as is evident from hearing the various interventions that have been made since then, the confusion persists. As the member for ScarboroughRouge River told the House, this has confused me. It has confused Parliament. It has confused us in our exercise of holding the government to account, whether it is the Privy Council, whether it is the minister, whether it is public officials; we cannot do our job when there is that type of confusion. In the case raised on February 17, 2011, the contradictory information involved information provided to a committee and information provided to the House. In this case, we have information provided to the House that is contradictory to information provided by an officer of Parliament.On page 222 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, sixth edition, it states that Committees are regarded as creatures of the House.The House of Commons publication Committees Practical Guide states that committees are central to the operations of the House of Commons and allow for detailed examination of complex matters, which offers an opportunity for members to hear from Canadians and experts on topics of national concern and to have these representations placed on the public record. They provide a means for members to probe into the details of policies and programs, thereby further developing an expertise in certain areas. The Privy Council Office, and some governmental documents, refers to the officers of Parliament as Agents of Parliament, thereby emphasizing that they carry out work for Parliament and are responsible to Parliament, and as a means of distinguishing them from other officers and officials of Parliament. It also emphasizes their independence from the government of the day. These officers of Parliament carry out duties assigned by statute, and report to one or both of the Senate and House of Commons. The individuals appointed to these offices perform work on behalf of Parliament, and report to the chambers, usually through the Speakers. I argue that information flowing from an officer of Parliament holds as much weight as information flowing from a standing committee, and when this information is contradictory and confuses Parliament, as it has, there is a need to direct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to look at this in the guise of a breach of privilege. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner issued a statement today that said: The Globe and Mail reported this morning that the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is at odds with the Prime Minister over how many cabinet ministers currently hold controlled assets indirectly. This is, in fact, not the case. The Office did not wish to give an exact number when asked how many cabinet ministers indirectly hold controlled assets. The Office indicated fewer than five, giving a general sense of an upper limit to the number, meaning it could be one, two, three or four. This does not clarify anything, and it certainly confuses the issues further. I ask that you find a prima facie question of privilege here. I am prepared to move the proper motion to allow the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to get to the bottom of this matter.If you have any doubts, Mr. Speaker, I refer you to a ruling given on March 21, 1978, at page 3,975 of Debates, which is also referred to in Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, at page 227, where Speaker Jerome quoted a British procedure committee report of 1967, which states in part: ...the Speaker should ask himself [I am sure he meant to say himself or herself], when he has to decide whether to grant precedence over other public business to a motion which a Member who has complained of some act or conduct as constituting a breach of privilege desires to move, should be notdo I consider that, assuming that the facts are as stated, the act or conduct constitutes a breach of privilege, but could it reasonably be held to be a breach of privilege, or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should, in my view, leave it to the House. Mr. Speaker, I submit this matter to your wise judgment.
Mr. Speaker, who is telling the truth, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner or the Prime Minister? I do not trust the Prime Minister, so I will go with the commissioner, as the Prime Minister has asked us to do every time a Liberal scandal has erupted over the past two years. However, we see through the Prime Minister, who is using the commissioner to distract from the real problem, namely the Minister of Finance and all his cover-ups.Why is he defending the indefensible? What is the Minister of Finance hiding in his numbered companies?
Mr. Speaker, to repeat, working with the Ethics Commissioner is the approach we have in this House. It is to respect the officer of Parliament who has that duty. That is what we will continue to do. It allows us to do the work we have been asked to do on behalf of Canadians. We will not get distracted by the games from the other side. We will not get distracted by the personal attacks. We will continue to be focused on Canadians. That focus is working. Canadians are in a much better situation two years later than they were when we came into office, so we will continue to do that good work on behalf of them.
Mr. Speaker, the only way to know if he is making Canadians better off instead of just making himself better off is just to reveal what investments he has held over the last two years in his vast network of holding companies and trust funds. We just recently found out that the minister was taking $65,000 a month in dividends from a company that he simultaneously regulated. He introduced a bill that would help that company.The only way to put all of this to bed and put an end to these questions for the minister is for him to come clean and tell us what he is hiding in those
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the indulgence. I only offer a small commentary, in addition to what we have heard.My friend has pointed out that the Prime Minister made a statement in the House that there was only one of his ministers, the Minister of Finance who was using this ethical loophole, this numbered company. We have to take members at their word that, when they speak in the House, that word is speaking the truth.We then had the unfortunate situation in which the Ethics Commissioner, when contacted by the media to clarify if the Prime Minister was in fact correct that there was only one of his ministers who had broken his own promise that things would be divulged, had to then essentially correct the Prime Minister saying that her earlier statement was still true.Now the reasons she has as Ethics Commissioner to keep the number somewhat vague, as less than five but more than one, is something that is at her discretion. That is not for us to judge.The concern we have not only is the potential case in which the Prime Minister may have misled the House of Commons on an important issue facing Canadians, but it is also thatafter so many weeks upon weeks of Liberal ministers, including the Prime Minister and the finance minister, saying how much faith they had in the Ethics Commissionerin effect they are using Parliament and parliamentary privilege to undermine the Ethics Commissioner's own statements to the Canadian public.Canadians are wondering what is going on within the Liberal cabinet. This is important in terms of our being able to do our jobs as opposition members on behalf of Canadians. Our job, primarily, is to hold the government to account, to find out what the government is and is not doing, and to find out whether it is keeping good faith with Canadians.I will remind the Speaker and all members that, in both their mandate letters and in the declaration from the Prime Minister, the instruction was crystal clear: they were not to simply follow the letter of the law, of the Conflict of Interest Act, but also the spirit of the law, and second, they were to make available all of their personal assets and holdings to the fullest public scrutiny.That is what the Prime Minister of this country promised us. That is what the Prime Minister later went on to contradict, both in word and deed.I look forward to your ruling on this, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to finally settling this matter, which can only be done, by the way, by the Prime Minister, his finance minister, and the other ministers in his cabinet who have been holding secret accounts in numbered companies, withholding that information from Canadians, which has put them in an obvious case of conflict of interest, from my perspective and that of others.
Mr. Speaker, I would be happy if the minister could tell me how I am wrong. Am I wrong when I say that the minister hid his assets for two years? Is the Ethics Commissioner wrong when she says there is more than one minister, but fewer than five? Are Canadians wrong to expect a little bit better from this finance minister and this Prime Minister?Once again, simple questions deserve simple answers. Who are the other ministers that are using the same loophole the finance minister used?
Mr. Speaker, that minister hid an offshore company in France, and then he hid $20 million of Morneau Shepell shares from Canadians. Now that Canadians know he held those shares, because of investigative journalism and not because of his transparency, he has admitted that it was not the right thing to do, has sold those shares, and is now saying he will give back the ill-gotten gains. We need to know what other inappropriate investments the minister might be hiding in his holding companies. Why does he not tell us what is in those companies?
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Youth brags about working to give young people better opportunities, but according to Generation Squeeze, government spending on youth programming is down $19 billion compared with 40 years ago.This is mystifying, given that youth today are worse off than people their age were 40 years ago, despite being more likely to have post-secondary degrees. They certainly have no shortage of needs, including funding for post-secondary studies, access to affordable housing, help to cope with growing food insecurity, and a national daycare system, to name but a few.When will the Minister of Youth finally put his money where his mouth is and support youth?
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is wrong, and he knows he is wrong. I disclosed all of my assets to the Ethics Commissioner and will continue to work with her. We will not play the games they are playing. We will continue to work with Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister thinks he can make difficult questions about his secrets go away by lashing out personally against those asking those questions. Earlier today he made belittling comments about our deputy leader and others who are simply doing their jobs. The only thing that will make these questions go away is for the minister to finally answer them. The minister was hiding $20 million of Morneau Shepell shares in only one of his holding companies. Can he please tell us what else he is hiding in his other holding companies?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is, and always will be, associated with the sponsorship scandal.Canadians believed that the Liberals got the message, but they did not get it at all. The Liberal government is introducing a bill on access to information that would prevent the excellent work of journalists, people like Daniel Leblanc and others, from revealing things like the sponsorship scandal. We are not the ones saying so. Yesterday, the Information Commissioner said: ...I went back to the request...that uncovered the sponsorship scandal and that request would not meet their new requirement under [this bill]. Why does the Liberal Party want to hide other sponsorship scandals?
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the finance minister said that our deputy leader cannot count, when in fact he is the one who is 100% over his promised deficit levels. He said that others do not know what assets are, when he is the one who just forgot to report his asset, an offshore company in France, to the Ethics Commissioner. Instead of lashing out at others, why does the finance minister not just let go of all the secrets and tell Canadians what he is hiding in all of his holding companies?
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said from the start, no relationship is more important to our government than our relationship with indigenous peoples. That is why the Prime Minister announced the dismantling of the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs. As we all know, far too many indigenous children end up in the child welfare system in Canada. We know the system is broken, and we know the system must be fixed. Could the Minister of Indigenous Services please update the House as to what is being done to protect the health and safety of indigenous children?
Mr. Speaker, today on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the Hanjin Seattle cargo ship debris spill in my riding, I tabled a motion to address coastal debris. Still, community groups are leading cleanup efforts without any help from the current government. Government officials have indicated that there is a near-complete legislative and regulatory void for coastal debris cleanup, and that there is no dedicated fund.The Liberals love talking about their world-class oceans protection plan, but nothing is happening. I have a simple question. Will the minister create a permanent dedicated annual fund for coastal debris cleanup?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I spoke with a member of the opposition. He told me that it was not personal, that what happens here in the House is just a game. For us, it is not a game. It is really important to Canadians. We know that for the 300,000 children lifted out of poverty, it is intensely personal. We will continue to work with Canadians to improve the Canada's situation. That is our goal.
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?
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the Liberals are centralists. They centralized decision-making on regional economic development in Toronto, and they centralized political decision-making on issues such as the elimination of the political lieutenant for Quebec in Ottawa. They are now preparing to centralize the arts by transferring a wide range of artifacts from Quebec City, the bastion of the Canadian francophonie, to the nation's capital.Will the member for Québec promise us that he will fight in cabinet to reverse this decision?
Mr. Speaker, what I will continue to do with Canadians is listen to their issues, make sure that we are addressing them, and move forward not only to ensure that we have a high level of economic growth in the country but that Canadians see the benefits of that growth for themselves and their families. That is what we have been doing for the last couple of years. While the members of the official opposition have been playing games, we have actually been trying to work for Canadians.The good news is, it is working, with a higher level of economic growth than we have seen in a decade and a lower level of unemployment than we have seen in a decade. We have over 450,000 more Canadians working. Jobs matter.
Mr. Speaker, we made a promise to Canadians that we will fix the immigration system to grow our economy and reunite families and eliminate the backlogs that were left behind by the Conservatives. Our multi-year immigration plan is the most ambitious yet. It supports GDP growth, attracts more investment into Canada, creates additional jobs for Canadians, and boosts innovation. We on this side of the House understand that immigration, together with a welcoming society, is what has made Canada
Mr. Speaker, we are keeping our election promise to join the Arms Trade Treaty. Regulating the illicit trade in weapons is essential for the protection of human rights.Bill C-47 would put into regulation the criteria that must be considered before authorizing export permits. As with all regulations, all Canadians will be able to provide input into developing these criteria.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Saint BonifaceSaint Vital for his question and for his leadership of the indigenous caucus.I believe that all members of this House are disturbed by the disproportionate rates of indigenous children in the child welfare system, over 50% by the most recent census. We have some of the highest rates of indigenous child apprehension in the world. That is one of the reasons I have called an emergency meeting, along with indigenous leaders. First nations, Inuit, and Métis leaders have asked for provinces and territories to come together with child welfare experts and advocates. We will find solutions, and we will work together to promote prevention and
Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the Conservatives promised to reform the Access to Information Act. They did nothing for 10 years. Their government was the first in the Commonwealth to be found in contempt of Parliament. We will take no lessons from the most secretive government of all time.
Mr. Speaker, to repeat, we have a process in this House that we work with the Ethics Commissioner so that we can expose all of our assets to her and that is in fact what I have done. In terms of disclosure, 100% disclosure is the highest number we can get. That is what I have done. That allowed her to give me recommendations on what we should do to ensure that we do not have conflicts of interest. That is what we expect all 338 members of this House to do. We will continue to respect the Ethics Commissioner. We will continue to work on behalf of Canadians, which is what we were elected to do.
Mr. Speaker, we have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to bringing equity for children in this country. As it relates to child and family services and the gaps that exist there, we recognize that we are facing a national crisis in terms of the way indigenous children are overrepresented in the child welfare system.As of this week, I have called for an emergency meeting of all appropriate partners. The provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, first nations, Inuit, and Métis will get together and we will solve this crisis together.
Mr. Speaker, I was saddened to read today that the leader of the official opposition has adopted Stephen Harper's approach to the opioid crisis. He is proposing that people with addiction issues should be arrested and incarcerated instead of being provided the help they need to stay alive and work toward a healthy future. The fact that the Conservatives want to reinstate Stephen Harper's failed strategy is irresponsible. People with addiction issues need help, not incarceration.Will the Minister of Health please update this House on her efforts to address the opioid crisis and provide needed support
Mr. Speaker, the member seems to have some trouble with numbers. What I can say is that two is less than five. Those are the numbers. What we can say is that we want to continue working with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner so that our government can be certain that it does not have conflicts of interest. That will continue to be our approach. We will work with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That is the government's method.
Mr. Speaker, since the finance minister has been exposed for hiding his assets in numerous multi-numbered companies, the Ethics Commissioner has stated that there are up to five other ministers who may be doing exactly the same thing.There is an unnamed senior government official who has decided to refute these claims, suggesting that the claims are actually wrong and her office is not correct in what it is saying.I would like to know this. The minister talks about trusting the Ethics Commissioner. Is there a senior government official over there who will actually say that there is no other minister in the same position he put himself in?
Mr. Speaker, we have full confidence in the Ethics Commissioner. We will review what the member has brought forward to the House and report back in due course.
Mr. Speaker, the answer is nothing. The answer is that I have exposed all of my assets to the Ethics Commissioner.What I can say for the record
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the President of the Treasury Board will have a lot more respect for the Information Commissioner. She said yesterday that the access to information reforms are smoke and mirrors from the Liberal government; while it is promising transparency, these reforms actually turn back the clock on the rights of citizens. It was the Information Commissioner who said that.Is the Liberal Party preparing other sponsorship scandals that it wants to keep under wraps?
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that our government is committed to living up to the highest standards. That is why we are working with the Ethics Commissioner to make sure that in all of our situations, she understands all of our assets. That is why we are taking her recommendations, as we all have, in order to move forward and ensure that none of us has conflicts of interest. We know that is the way we get to do the work we were hired to do by Canadians, which is working to continue to grow our economy and making sure that we have a fair situation where people get the benefits of that growth. That is what Canadians are seeing. That is what we will keep doing.
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was speaking to the member for Milton. I want to be clear that I was not questioning her numeracy skills. I have the highest respect for the member for Milton, who I know has had a positive business career. What I am questioning and what I would question for the member for Carleton is the numbers that he is actually focusing on. In his case, the numbers he should focus on are the more than 16,000 children in his riding who are getting the Canada child benefit, on average $520 per family. This is what we are doing for Canadians. We are making families better off so that they can actually move forward, to have confidence
Mr. Speaker, no one here thinks that it is a game to expect ministers to be held accountable, to be open, and transparent. However, there are some ministers who have been playing a game. It was called Hide the assets. In the case of the finance minister, it lasted two years. All that the opposition wants to know and all that Canadians want to know is who are the ministers who are using similar loopholes, how many are there, and when did the Prime Minister know this was going on?
Mr. Speaker, the minister is absolutely right. Canadians' trust is not a game. It is to be safeguarded, but right now, the minister is undermining it. For the past three weeks, the Prime Minister has gone on ad nauseam about how he trusts the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Now that the commissioner is saying there are two, three, or maybe four ministers playing the same game as this minister and hiding their assets from Canadians, all of a sudden the Prime Minister is saying she is wrong.My question is simple. Was the Minister of Finance actually in conflict of interest? When did the Prime Minister know about it?
Mr. Speaker, there is no issue on which I stand with a prouder sense of commitment and accomplishment than on the issue of housing. Not only in the first budget did we double the amount of money going to provinces and our partners in the municipalities, but we have now committed to a 10-year program to create the first ever national strategy for housing. This is going to be a game changer. We have consulted widely with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We have listened to their needs about repairs, about construction, and about subsidies. We will be delivering the best housing policy our country has ever seen. I can only hope the party opposite does not vote against it once again.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told the House yesterday that Liberals trust and honour the work of the Ethics Commissioner. The Prime Minister has been telling us all week to trust the Ethics Commissioner. Now the Prime Minister's Office is telling us she is wrong about the number of Liberal ministers using conflict loopholes. We trust the Ethics Commissioner. Just how many ministers have gamed the spirit of the Conflict of Interest Act?
Mr. Speaker, yes, I can say that the member opposite is wrong when he says that I did not disclose all of my assets. I worked with the Ethics Commissioner, as all of us on this side are committed to doing. We will continue to do so.What I can also say is that Canadians were right when they decided to elect our government, because they knew that we would focus on them, and not focus on playing games that are not to their advantage or their families' advantage. Happily for them, our country is in a much better situation with higher growth and a better situation for their families across this country.
Mr. Speaker, to call that answer vague would be an understatement, and I am nowhere near convinced. If the government does not provide health and security services to the people, it should hand that tax revenue over to the provinces, which do. On another matter, today the media reported that Quebec's religious neutrality law could be challenged as early as tomorrow. Quebec has the right to make its own decisions about rules governing the relationship between the state and its people. That is a fundamental right.Will the government respect Quebec's jurisdiction, as stated in the motion we adopted, and will it promise not to pay for any legal challenge to Quebec's religious neutrality law?
Mr. Speaker, as I have said to this House, I believe it is important that we work with the Ethics Commissioner. That is important. That is, in fact, exactly what I did. By exposing all of my assets, 100% of my assets, to the Ethics Commissioner when we came into office, I was able to get recommendations from her on how to best move forward to avoid conflicts of interest, as the other members of our government have done. We know that is the way we get to do the important work for Canadians, not to play games or go for personal attacks that really do not advance the cause of any Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that members opposite trust the Ethics Commissioner, as we do. We have worked with the Ethics Commissioner to make sure that we can ensure all of our situations are fully exposed and that she can provide recommendations for us on how we can ensure we do not have conflicts of interest. I can say from my standpoint that was an important exercise to ensure I do not have conflicts of interest.We will continue to do that. That allows us to get to the work we want to do on behalf of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to assure members of this House and all Canadians that we are delivering on our campaign commitment to join the Arms Trade Treaty. Tackling the illicit trade in weapons is essential for the protection of people and of human rights. Bill C-47 would put into regulations the criteria that must be considered before authorizing export permits. As with all regulations, all Canadians will be able to provide input into developing these criteria.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-47 on the Arms Trade Treaty has numerous flaws. For instance, it does not impose any firm legal limits on the authority of the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding the approval of arms exports. Furthermore, it does not cover exports to the U.S., which account for 50% of our arms exports.Experts who appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development talked about the serious concerns they have.Will the government agree to amend the bill, or even better, withdraw it and start over?
Mr. Speaker, to join the treaty, we would first have to respect it.Experts have testified to the serious problems in the bill to implement the Arms Trade Treaty. Two detailed reports have been issued that insist that the government's Bill C-47 does not reflect either the spirit or the letter of the treaty. Nothing in the bill would prevent future arms deals with human rights abusers.I ask the minister again. Will the government amend the bill or withdraw it and start over?
Mr. Speaker, as we have said, working with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is very important. That is what we have done. We have a lot of respect for her. Our government believes that this is the best way to ensure we are not in conflict of interest. We will continue to follow this approach because that is how we get to do the important work for Canadians. This really is not a game. It is very important to families across the country.
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. We know that is very important. We believe that the best way to ensure that we are not in a conflict of interest is by working with her. That way, we can do the work that is important for Canadians. That is our approach. We now have the highest rate of economic growth and the lowest rate of unemployment in a decade. That is good for Canada and Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, thinking about counting for the member for Milton, there are 25,630 children in her riding whose families are getting on average $520 more through the Canada child benefit. Those are the numbers that we know matter to Canadians.With respect to working with the Ethics Commissioner, we will continue to do so because we know that is the right way for us to fully allow us to do our work, exposing all of our assets, which all of us have done, including me, working with her and taking her recommendations to make sure we can get on with the important work we are doing for the people of Milton.
Mr. Speaker, if I am wrong, then so too must be the Ethics Commissioner who fined the finance minister for not disclosing his assets. Is that some kind of a compliance fine that she issued him? My last question for the finance minister would be that if he actually if he did disclose his assets for the past few years, will he be asking for his $200 back?
Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that, in fact, my state of mind is not irritated but actually encouraged with the economy that we are seeing for Canadians. We have seen, over two years, a very positive change in our economy. We have seen, in two years, a very positive change for middle-class Canadians and families across our country. That is what we are here to do, so we will continue to do the good work and not play the games that the other party is playing.
Mr. Speaker, we are proud to be the first government in more than 30 years to modernize the Access to Information Act. I want to be very clear on a specific issue the hon. member raised in regard to indigenous peoples.I will be very clear that we will support an amendment that would require departments to seek approval from the Information Commissioner before refusing a request. This would ensure that broad requests would not be refused simply because they were broadly applied in their descriptions. We want to ensure that this modernization of access to information strengthens the regime, and we are open to narrowing the application of this clause,
Mr. Speaker, we are the first government in 30 years to want to update the Access to Information Act, and we will work with the Information Commissioner to do so.In fact, let us be very clear. For the first time in history, our government is giving the commissioner order-making power. For the first time in history, we are actually applying the Access to Information Act to ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office. The Conservatives did nothing to modernize the act in 10 years. We are getting it done.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member for Carleton does not actually know what an asset is, but all my assets were exposed to the Ethics Commissioner. What I can say is that we continue to work on behalf of Canadians, and we will continue to do so.For the member opposite, the member for Carleton, what I can say is for the more than 16,000 children in his riding who are getting the Canada child benefit, an average of $430 per family, we are proud that we are able to help those families.
Mr. Speaker, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner clearly said that many ministers are using the same loophole that the finance minister used to hide his assets. However, the Prime Minister assured us that the finance minister was the only one to do so.The question is simple: how many other cabinet ministers are using the same loophole and who are they?
Mr. Speaker, again, we have the highest respect for the Ethics Commissioner and will continue to work with her to make sure that her work, which is so important, can continue to be done in a respectful way. That is our approach. We know that the approach to disclosing all of our assets to her is important. Taking her recommendations, which we have done, is important. That will allow us to continue to help all Canadian constituents across the country, including those who live in constituencies of members across the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister can help us out. Am I getting warmer or colder? It is more than one, but fewer than five. Is it four? Is it three? Is it two? Why can this minister not just answer simple questions?Who are the other ministers and how many are there?
Mr. Speaker, we know on this side of the House that some of the members of the opposition have a tough time counting.What we know is that the number two is less than the number five. What we can say is that there are two: one member who divested all of the assets 18 months ago and another member, me, who has divested his assets most recently. It is quite clear. It is up there on the website to see.We will continue to work with Canadians and not play these games.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say for the record that I hold the Ethics Commissioner in the highest regard. We believe that it is important that we have an officer of Parliament who helps all of us here in the House to ensure that we can expose our personal assets and do it in a way that allows us to take recommendations on how we can assure that we do not have conflicts of interest. That is our continuing approach.I will continue to work with her, as I have thus far. As I have said to this House, I have gone farther than her recommendations to make absolutely sure that in my position, there cannot be even a perception of conflict.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader if she could please tell us what business is happening for the rest of this week and next week before we go back for our Remembrance Day ceremonies.
Mr. Speaker, Parks Canada primarily exhibits the objects under its care at Parks Canada-administered national parks and national historic sites in every province and territory.In 2012, Parks Canada decided to build a purpose-built collection facility to ensure the sustainable care and management of the collection not currently on display throughout Canada. There are approximately 31 million artifacts under Parks Canada's care, and 60% of the collection is under threat due to inappropriate environmental storage conditions and lack of appropriate security.We are working to ensure the protection and preservation of the collection and its display throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, Canada's story is the story of immigration. Those who choose Canada bring with them their unique culture, skills, and an entrepreneurial spirit that strengthens our economy. My family immigrated to Canada 18 years ago to build a better life for our son. We sacrificed, we worked hard, and now I sit in the House as the member for Scarborough Centre. Could the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship please update the House on how our government's historic immigration levels plan will continue the tradition of welcoming newcomers to Canada?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right, we are very proud of our oceans protection plan, which now has approached its first-year anniversary and we have announced over 50 measures. With respect to ships that lose cargo, it is very clear that they are responsible for the cleaning. That is the situation with the Hanjin Seattle that my colleague is referring to.
Mr. Speaker, this morning we started second reading debate on Bill C-63, the budget implementation act. We will continue debate on this legislation this afternoon.Tomorrow we will commence second reading debate of Bill S-5, concerning amendments to the Tobacco Act.On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of next week, we shall continue with debate on the budget bill. Last Thursday I indicated to the House that we would allot four days of debate at second reading, which means we would expect the vote to send the bill to committee to take place on Wednesday evening. I would like to thank opposition House leaders for their co-operation in finding agreement on this timeline.On Thursday, we will resume debate on Bill C-45 on cannabis, and hope to conclude the debate at report stage. We will also be working to pass Bill C-17 on the Yukon before the next constituency week.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will not be playing games. We will focus on Canadians.For the member for ReginaQu'Appelle, we know that for the 16,090 children who have received the Canada child benefit, an average of $700 per family, it is not a game. It is helping their families. That is what we are working to do, and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work with the Ethics Commissioner. We believe that is important. It is important also to focus on how Canadian families are feeling right now. They are seeing the highest growth rate they have seen in a decade. They are seeing more than 450,000 new jobs created over the last couple of years. They are seeing the lowest rate of unemployment that they have seen, again, in a decade. This is a good situation for Canadians. We know there is much more to do. That is why we said we were going to index the Canada child benefit two years in advance. That is why we are putting in place an increase in the working income tax benefit. These are important things to help our country move forward.
Mr. Speaker, Canada's big city mayors have sounded the alarm. One in five renters spend more than half their income on housing, and 1.5 million families cannot find affordable housing.In Montreal, 25,000 families are on the waiting list for social housing, and in Toronto, 58,000 community housing units are in need of immediate repair.As the minister prepares to announce the details of his housing strategy, will he commit to investing the funding necessary to maintain and expand social housing stock?
Mr. Speaker, our position on the issue has always been clear. We will always promote and protect rights and freedoms because we believe in the importance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not for the state to say what a person can or cannot wear.We are currently examining the application of the law. I thank my colleagues for their support on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I can say that we are very proud of our historic investments in young Canadians across the country.First, we boosted the Canada summer jobs program by an unprecedented $300 million. Next, we made a historic investment in education by increasing funding for student grants by 50%. Recently, we invested $400 million to create co-op placements for young Canadians.We fully understand that an investment in youth is an investment in our country's future, and that is exactly what we will keep doing.
Mr. Speaker, our government has been working very closely with our provincial and territorial partners. There have been ongoing discussions with the provinces and territories about the appropriate taxation and price regimens to be put in place. That is part of an ongoing and important discussion. That discussion has been characterized by close co-operation and collaboration between all parties.
Time.
Shame on you, Bill, you're being dishonest. You're being very dishonest.
It is actually laughable, Mr. Speaker, to hear the finance minister talking about counting, because the thing he has been counting since he became the finance minister is the mountain of cash that he has made off Morneau Shepell shares and dividends. The Prime Minister does have a problem. He either agrees that the Ethics Commissioner is right that the finance minister broke the law, or he disagrees with her and says everything is fine. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot suck and blow at the same time. The finance minister has been found guilty and fined by the Ethics Commissioner. How could the finance minister betray the trust of Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has placed the Ethics Commissioner in an impossible position, first by withholding information from the commissioner, then by claiming that she supported everything he did, but she fined him for not complying with the act. Instead of insulting MPs and insinuating that female elected representatives cannot do math, why does the finance minister not just come clean and answer the questions?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is blaming everybody but the finance minister or himself for the scandal that is before us. The Prime Minister is all but directly blaming the Ethics Commissioner, blaming the Ethics Commissioner for the finance minister's several inexcusable lapses of judgment and for the Prime Minister's own willingness to look the other way.Why is the Prime Minister misleading Parliament about other ministers' actions? Is the Prime Minister's Office calling the Ethics Commissioner a liar?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise my point of order at this point, before I go on with the Thursday question.I rise on a point of order regarding comments just made during question period. The Minister of Finance said directly that our deputy leader did not know how to count. Our deputy leader has been a member of Parliament here for nine years. She has a law degree from Osgoode Hall Law School. She has been a CEO. She clearly knows how to count, and so much more. These are some of the reasons, many times, women do not want to get involved in the political process. When maybe things are tough, insults like thatBimbo, You don't know how to count, You're not smart, You're a puppetare hurled at women politicians and at women in general. I hope that is not what the Minister of Finance was trying to do, but I would like to give him the opportunity to apologize to our very qualified, very smart, and very capable deputy House leader.
Mr. Speaker, it has been exactly one year since Parliament ordered the Liberal government to stop defying the Human Rights Tribunal and immediately flow that $155-million shortfall on child welfare. The government refused, saying that it would be like throwing confetti. No, it is about protecting children like 12-year-old Amy Owen, who, before she died wrote on Facebook, I am just a kid and my life is a nightmare.To the minister, stop defending the same feeble funding formula for child welfare established by Stephen Harper. Why will the minister refuse to flow that money that was ordered by the Parliament of Canada?
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister did not go further. He was fined by the Ethics Commissioner for breaking the rules. Instead of owning up to it, he is clearly irritated and throwing insults. I think the finance minister may need a little break at his French villa over the next few weeks.Seriously, this is a very serious issue when the Minister of Finance is hiding assets. I have a simple question. No insults, please. What else is the finance minister hiding in his other numbered companies?
That is coming from the party of the sponsorship scandal, Mr. Speaker. The Information Commissioner dropped a bombshell yesterday. The Liberals' new no access to information bill, Bill C-58, will make things even worse than they were under Stephen Harper and Jean Chrétien. Ethics, cash for access, and open government were all promises made, and all promises that were broken. From the sponsorship scandal to missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls, all of this came to light through access to information.Will the minister listen to civil society, immigration groups, and first nations, and fix this bad bill?
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is the hon. member for Toronto Centre, but it is not honourable to suggest that our deputy leader cannot count. It is not honourable to suggest that our finance critic is obtuse. It is not honourable for the member to deny his own mistakes and his own omissions. When will the hon. member do the right thing and apologize to Canadians for his mistakes?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the opposition was levelling baseless accusations. Today, the Liberals are accusing the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner of providing false information about their own minister's situation. I wonder who are the ones making baseless accusations in the House.My question is simple: now that we know that his finance minister is in a direct conflict of interest, I would like to know why the Prime Minister misled Parliament and all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, are these ethical standards if the Liberals cannot even enforce the bare minimum they should be following?The Prime Minister is showing his contempt for the House, which is calling for explanations for his ethical lapses and those of his government.However, the facts are clear. This Prime Minister is still under investigation for his trip to the Aga Khan's private island. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has identified one, two, three, four minsters who are using the loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act.The commissioner is also concerned about the role the minister played in Bill C-27. This government said that it would live up to the highest ethical standards.Why then can the government not even enforce the bare minimum?
Mr. Speaker, displacing artifacts like that and bringing them here is an outrage.Bill C-63 revealed that the government wants to start taxing pot. That is another way of stirring up trouble in Quebec and lining their own pockets. We know that Quebec, not Ottawa, will have to pick up the tab for costs related to health and security. Will the government promise to leave that money to Quebec, or will it once again try to line its own pockets without even doing a thing?
Mr. Speaker, I know the finance minister is getting irritated by the process of accountability around this place, but he did not reveal all of his assets to the Ethics Commissioner; he kept hidden his offshore company in France. That is why she found him in violation of the law and required that he pay a punitive fine. Now he is hiding other assets within different holding companies. He could make these questions go away if he would simply tell Canadians what he is hiding in his vast network of numbered companies and trust funds.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his work and his tireless efforts in this matter. Like him, I was extremely disappointed yesterday when I heard the opposition leader's outdated belief. Unlike the Conservatives, our government is actually supporting law enforcement where it matters. Rather than prosecuting those with mental health and addiction issues, we are disrupting illegal drugs at the border and diverting people out of the criminal justice system.With Bill C-37 and C-224, our government is taking a compassionate, evidence-based approach to reduce barriers to treatment and encourage innovative measures to prevent overdoses and save lives.
Mr. Speaker, exactly no one in first nation communities believes what the minister just said. Liberals seem to have invented a whole new game. It is called Ethics Bingo. How many Liberals have secret numbered companies they have not told Canadians about? Is it one? Yes, there is one. Is it two? Oh yes, at least two. Is it three? Tell me when I get to the right one and we can all yell bingo together. Enough with the games. Here are the Prime Minister's pre-end zone instructions to his ministers: ...you must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality...and the arrangement of your private affairs should bear the closest public scrutiny. When are they actually going to live up to those words, or are they just meaningless words written on paper?
Mr. Speaker, one thing we can all agree on is that the Minister of Finance needs help in one thing in counting: he better count on getting some better communications advice.The Prime Minister said this week: ...I am not trying to blame the Ethics Commissioner, I am trying to trust the Ethics Commissioner. That is what opposition members need to do. That is exactly what we are doing as well. After weeks of misleading and memory lapses, the Government of Canada has shown that it does not trust the Ethics Commissioner, but I think Canadians actually do.The minister put himself in a direct conflict, and he broke the law when he failed to disclose
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in this chamber, I had a member of the opposition come over to tell me not to take it personally because what happens here is just a game. For our government it is absolutely not a game. We are working to improve the lives of Canadians. For those 300,000 children who are being lifted out of poverty, for their parents, it is intensely personal. They care about our country and they care about their families.We will not play the games of the opposition. We are going to work on behalf of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, marijuana growers in my riding of KootenayColumbia have formed a co-op to advance their rights. They are concerned that the government will not license growers who farm outdoors and that licensing will go only to large corporate indoor growers. Indeed, Liberals on the health committee already voted down an NDP motion to allow provinces to develop production regimes that would support local economies.As the government moves to legalize the recreational use of cannabis, will it stand with and support economically important, small-scale outdoor farmers across Canada and ensure that they have a future, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, after more than 30 years, we are the first government to modernize the Access to Information Act, and we are applying it to ministers' offices through proactive disclosure. I understand why the NDP does not like proactive disclosure. When we were in opposition and the Prime Minister was the leader of the Liberals in opposition, he led the charge on proactive disclosure of MPs' expenses. The Conservatives signed on to it quite quickly, but the NDP members were dragged kicking and screaming to disclose their expenses to the Canadian public. They did not like proactive disclosure then, and they do not like it today.
Mr. Speaker, our government has introduced a comprehensive framework for the strict regulation of the production, distribution, and consumption of cannabis. We have been working collaboratively with our provincial and territorial partners. Health Canada administers a very effective system of licensing for those who meet the requirements of that regulation to ensure that what will be consumed by Canadians is of known potency and purity. Those rules are important for the health and safety of all Canadians, and we will continue to promote them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring to your attention a grave and disturbing matter that occurred yesterday while riding the House of Commons bus. I stand with a very heavy heart for this point of order because it was exactly for that reason I went into politics, to be a voice for the most vulnerable and fight for the rights of women, especially immigrant women, and bring their voice to Ottawa to fight against racism, agism, and sexism.Now I will state the facts. I was sitting on an outside seat when the member for SpadinaFort York entered the bus. The member stopped and hovered over me. He began to wave his hand in my face, chastised and intimidated me for something I said in the House earlier in the day. Yesterday, during question period, the Prime Minister was giving one of his non-answers to a question about the government transferring up to half a billion dollars into the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, while at the same time the PBO reported the government was behind on infrastructure spending within Canada. With great emotion and pride, I said Canada is our home. For some reason, the member took issue with my statement and began to intimidate me for raising it, making suggestions to alternative statements I could have made. I did not have time to give you the proper notice of a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, but I reserve the right to do so. I do so for the following reasons. Responding to threats was among the first matters of parliamentary privilege dealt with in Canada. Page 198 of the second edition of Joseph Maginot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada tells us of an incident in 1758 where the Nova Scotia House of Assembly proceeded against someone who made threats against a member. In a ruling on September 19, 1973, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, at page 6709 of the Debates, stated that he had: no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats and attempts at intimidation. Mr. Speaker Bosley, on May 16, 1986, at page 13362 of Debates, ruled that the threat or attempt to intimidate could not be hypothetical, but that it must be real or have occurred. I have a whole bus of passengers who witnessed this whole incident.On March 24, 1994, at page 2705 of Debates, Mr. Speaker Parent said: Threats of blackmail or intimidation of a member of Parliament should never be taken lightly. When such occurs, the very essence of free speech is undermined. Without the guarantee of freedom of speech, no member of Parliament can do his duty as expected. This attempt to intimidate me was directly linked to what I said in the House earlier in the day, and that, Mr. Speaker, should be grounds enough to warrant a favourable ruling for a question of privilege.Hiding behind a prime minister who claims to be a feminist does not give the member the right to intimidate another member of the same House of another party. Female members of all three parties were on the bus. They witnessed everything he did and how he intimidated me. Therefore, I reserve the right for a question of privilege with proper notice.
Mr. Speaker, our strategy is to continue improving the lives of Canadian families and the middle class across the country. That is what matters. That is why we introduced the Canada child benefit, which makes life better for 300,000 children. That is why we improved the working income tax benefit for Canadians who are seriously struggling. We will continue to work for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, what I can say to the member opposite is: wrong again.What happened here is that I disclosed all of my assets, and in fact there was an administrative error that we satisfied the commissioner with the $200 fine I paid. We are trying to work to help Canadians and not play the games that the members opposite are trying to play, because we know that was what we were elected to do. For all of those Canadians who looked at what we announced last week, the level of growth our country is seeing, and the improvements we are going to make in the Canada child benefit and the working income tax benefit, we are going to tell them that we are working for them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the issue of contradictory information given to members regarding the number of cabinet ministers who are currently using a conflict of interest loophole to avoid divesting personal investments or putting them in a blind trust. This contradictory information has been provided by an officer of Parliament, the Ethics Commissioner, and by the Prime Minister. The Ethics Commissioner has said that a number of Liberal cabinet ministers hold controlled assets indirectly, but the Prime Minister contends that only the finance minister does and that he is now in the process of selling shares in Morneau Shepell and setting up a blind trust in the meantime. When pressed to clarify if the Prime Minister was correct in his assertion that the Minister of Finance is the lone minister exploiting a loophole, Ms. Dawson's office confirmed via an email from her spokesperson, Jocelyne Brisebois, which states: The Office still maintains that there are fewer than five ministers who have controlled assets and no we were not wrong about the information provided in our statement to you. We can say fewer than five ministers, including [the finance minister]. That is, she says the commissioner's office was not wrong.However, on Tuesday, the Prime Minister insisted in the Commons that the finance minister is the only one of his 30 ministers who is currently exploiting this loophole. On page 111 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May, it states that, The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.On February 1, 2002, the Speaker then ruled on a matter in regard to the former minister of national defence: The hon. member for PortageLisgar alleged that the Minister of National Defence deliberately misled the House as to when he knew that prisoners taken by Canadian JTF2 troops in Afghanistan had been handed over to the Americans. In support of that allegation, he cited the minister's responses in question period on two successive days... The Speaker considered the matter and found there was a prima facie question of privilege. He said: The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House. The authorities to which Speaker Milliken was referring include but are not limited to the following. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 115, Misleading a Minister or a Member has also been considered a form of obstruction and thus a prima facie breach of privilege.When the Speaker, in 2002, accepted the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House, he stated that Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation. The Speaker then referred to the first edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 67: There are...affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges...the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; [or that] obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties... The Speaker went on to say: On the basis of the arguments presented by hon. members and in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. I therefore invite the hon. member for PortageLisgar to move his motion. On February 17, 2011, the member for ScarboroughGuildwood and other members argued that a minister had made statements in committee that were different from those made in the House or provided to the House in written form. These members argued that the material available showed that contradictory information had been provided. As a result, they argued that this demonstrated that the minister deliberately misled the House and that as such a prima facie case of privilege existed.In a ruling of March 9, 2011, the Speaker then pointed out: ...when asked who inserted the word not in the assessment of the KAIROS funding application, in testimony [before the committee] the minister twice replied that she did not know. In a February 14 statement to the House, while she did not indicate that she knew who inserted the word not, the minister addressed this matter by stating that the not was inserted at her direction. At the very least, it can be said that this has caused confusion. The minister has acknowledged this, and has characterized her own handling of the matter as unfortunate. Yet as is evident from hearing the various interventions that have been made since then, the confusion persists. As the member for ScarboroughRouge River told the House, this has confused me. It has confused Parliament. It has confused us in our exercise of holding the government to account, whether it is the Privy Council, whether it is the minister, whether it is public officials; we cannot do our job when there is that type of confusion. In the case raised on February 17, 2011, the contradictory information involved information provided to a committee and information provided to the House. In this case, we have information provided to the House that is contradictory to information provided by an officer of Parliament.On page 222 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, sixth edition, it states that Committees are regarded as creatures of the House.The House of Commons publication Committees Practical Guide states that committees are central to the operations of the House of Commons and allow for detailed examination of complex matters, which offers an opportunity for members to hear from Canadians and experts on topics of national concern and to have these representations placed on the public record. They provide a means for members to probe into the details of policies and programs, thereby further developing an expertise in certain areas. The Privy Council Office, and some governmental documents, refers to the officers of Parliament as Agents of Parliament, thereby emphasizing that they carry out work for Parliament and are responsible to Parliament, and as a means of distinguishing them from other officers and officials of Parliament. It also emphasizes their independence from the government of the day. These officers of Parliament carry out duties assigned by statute, and report to one or both of the Senate and House of Commons. The individuals appointed to these offices perform work on behalf of Parliament, and report to the chambers, usually through the Speakers. I argue that information flowing from an officer of Parliament holds as much weight as information flowing from a standing committee, and when this information is contradictory and confuses Parliament, as it has, there is a need to direct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to look at this in the guise of a breach of privilege. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner issued a statement today that said: The Globe and Mail reported this morning that the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is at odds with the Prime Minister over how many cabinet ministers currently hold controlled assets indirectly. This is, in fact, not the case. The Office did not wish to give an exact number when asked how many cabinet ministers indirectly hold controlled assets. The Office indicated fewer than five, giving a general sense of an upper limit to the number, meaning it could be one, two, three or four. This does not clarify anything, and it certainly confuses the issues further. I ask that you find a prima facie question of privilege here. I am prepared to move the proper motion to allow the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to get to the bottom of this matter.If you have any doubts, Mr. Speaker, I refer you to a ruling given on March 21, 1978, at page 3,975 of Debates, which is also referred to in Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, at page 227, where Speaker Jerome quoted a British procedure committee report of 1967, which states in part: ...the Speaker should ask himself [I am sure he meant to say himself or herself], when he has to decide whether to grant precedence over other public business to a motion which a Member who has complained of some act or conduct as constituting a breach of privilege desires to move, should be notdo I consider that, assuming that the facts are as stated, the act or conduct constitutes a breach of privilege, but could it reasonably be held to be a breach of privilege, or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should, in my view, leave it to the House. Mr. Speaker, I submit this matter to your wise judgment.
Mr. Speaker, who is telling the truth, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner or the Prime Minister? I do not trust the Prime Minister, so I will go with the commissioner, as the Prime Minister has asked us to do every time a Liberal scandal has erupted over the past two years. However, we see through the Prime Minister, who is using the commissioner to distract from the real problem, namely the Minister of Finance and all his cover-ups.Why is he defending the indefensible? What is the Minister of Finance hiding in his numbered companies?
Mr. Speaker, to repeat, working with the Ethics Commissioner is the approach we have in this House. It is to respect the officer of Parliament who has that duty. That is what we will continue to do. It allows us to do the work we have been asked to do on behalf of Canadians. We will not get distracted by the games from the other side. We will not get distracted by the personal attacks. We will continue to be focused on Canadians. That focus is working. Canadians are in a much better situation two years later than they were when we came into office, so we will continue to do that good work on behalf of them.
Mr. Speaker, the only way to know if he is making Canadians better off instead of just making himself better off is just to reveal what investments he has held over the last two years in his vast network of holding companies and trust funds. We just recently found out that the minister was taking $65,000 a month in dividends from a company that he simultaneously regulated. He introduced a bill that would help that company.The only way to put all of this to bed and put an end to these questions for the minister is for him to come clean and tell us what he is hiding in those
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the indulgence. I only offer a small commentary, in addition to what we have heard.My friend has pointed out that the Prime Minister made a statement in the House that there was only one of his ministers, the Minister of Finance who was using this ethical loophole, this numbered company. We have to take members at their word that, when they speak in the House, that word is speaking the truth.We then had the unfortunate situation in which the Ethics Commissioner, when contacted by the media to clarify if the Prime Minister was in fact correct that there was only one of his ministers who had broken his own promise that things would be divulged, had to then essentially correct the Prime Minister saying that her earlier statement was still true.Now the reasons she has as Ethics Commissioner to keep the number somewhat vague, as less than five but more than one, is something that is at her discretion. That is not for us to judge.The concern we have not only is the potential case in which the Prime Minister may have misled the House of Commons on an important issue facing Canadians, but it is also thatafter so many weeks upon weeks of Liberal ministers, including the Prime Minister and the finance minister, saying how much faith they had in the Ethics Commissionerin effect they are using Parliament and parliamentary privilege to undermine the Ethics Commissioner's own statements to the Canadian public.Canadians are wondering what is going on within the Liberal cabinet. This is important in terms of our being able to do our jobs as opposition members on behalf of Canadians. Our job, primarily, is to hold the government to account, to find out what the government is and is not doing, and to find out whether it is keeping good faith with Canadians.I will remind the Speaker and all members that, in both their mandate letters and in the declaration from the Prime Minister, the instruction was crystal clear: they were not to simply follow the letter of the law, of the Conflict of Interest Act, but also the spirit of the law, and second, they were to make available all of their personal assets and holdings to the fullest public scrutiny.That is what the Prime Minister of this country promised us. That is what the Prime Minister later went on to contradict, both in word and deed.I look forward to your ruling on this, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to finally settling this matter, which can only be done, by the way, by the Prime Minister, his finance minister, and the other ministers in his cabinet who have been holding secret accounts in numbered companies, withholding that information from Canadians, which has put them in an obvious case of conflict of interest, from my perspective and that of others.
Mr. Speaker, I would be happy if the minister could tell me how I am wrong. Am I wrong when I say that the minister hid his assets for two years? Is the Ethics Commissioner wrong when she says there is more than one minister, but fewer than five? Are Canadians wrong to expect a little bit better from this finance minister and this Prime Minister?Once again, simple questions deserve simple answers. Who are the other ministers that are using the same loophole the finance minister used?
Mr. Speaker, that minister hid an offshore company in France, and then he hid $20 million of Morneau Shepell shares from Canadians. Now that Canadians know he held those shares, because of investigative journalism and not because of his transparency, he has admitted that it was not the right thing to do, has sold those shares, and is now saying he will give back the ill-gotten gains. We need to know what other inappropriate investments the minister might be hiding in his holding companies. Why does he not tell us what is in those companies?
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Youth brags about working to give young people better opportunities, but according to Generation Squeeze, government spending on youth programming is down $19 billion compared with 40 years ago.This is mystifying, given that youth today are worse off than people their age were 40 years ago, despite being more likely to have post-secondary degrees. They certainly have no shortage of needs, including funding for post-secondary studies, access to affordable housing, help to cope with growing food insecurity, and a national daycare system, to name but a few.When will the Minister of Youth finally put his money where his mouth is and support youth?
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is wrong, and he knows he is wrong. I disclosed all of my assets to the Ethics Commissioner and will continue to work with her. We will not play the games they are playing. We will continue to work with Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister thinks he can make difficult questions about his secrets go away by lashing out personally against those asking those questions. Earlier today he made belittling comments about our deputy leader and others who are simply doing their jobs. The only thing that will make these questions go away is for the minister to finally answer them. The minister was hiding $20 million of Morneau Shepell shares in only one of his holding companies. Can he please tell us what else he is hiding in his other holding companies?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is, and always will be, associated with the sponsorship scandal.Canadians believed that the Liberals got the message, but they did not get it at all. The Liberal government is introducing a bill on access to information that would prevent the excellent work of journalists, people like Daniel Leblanc and others, from revealing things like the sponsorship scandal. We are not the ones saying so. Yesterday, the Information Commissioner said: ...I went back to the request...that uncovered the sponsorship scandal and that request would not meet their new requirement under [this bill]. Why does the Liberal Party want to hide other sponsorship scandals?
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the finance minister said that our deputy leader cannot count, when in fact he is the one who is 100% over his promised deficit levels. He said that others do not know what assets are, when he is the one who just forgot to report his asset, an offshore company in France, to the Ethics Commissioner. Instead of lashing out at others, why does the finance minister not just let go of all the secrets and tell Canadians what he is hiding in all of his holding companies?
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said from the start, no relationship is more important to our government than our relationship with indigenous peoples. That is why the Prime Minister announced the dismantling of the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs. As we all know, far too many indigenous children end up in the child welfare system in Canada. We know the system is broken, and we know the system must be fixed. Could the Minister of Indigenous Services please update the House as to what is being done to protect the health and safety of indigenous children?
Mr. Speaker, today on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the Hanjin Seattle cargo ship debris spill in my riding, I tabled a motion to address coastal debris. Still, community groups are leading cleanup efforts without any help from the current government. Government officials have indicated that there is a near-complete legislative and regulatory void for coastal debris cleanup, and that there is no dedicated fund.The Liberals love talking about their world-class oceans protection plan, but nothing is happening. I have a simple question. Will the minister create a permanent dedicated annual fund for coastal debris cleanup?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I spoke with a member of the opposition. He told me that it was not personal, that what happens here in the House is just a game. For us, it is not a game. It is really important to Canadians. We know that for the 300,000 children lifted out of poverty, it is intensely personal. We will continue to work with Canadians to improve the Canada's situation. That is our goal.
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?
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the Liberals are centralists. They centralized decision-making on regional economic development in Toronto, and they centralized political decision-making on issues such as the elimination of the political lieutenant for Quebec in Ottawa. They are now preparing to centralize the arts by transferring a wide range of artifacts from Quebec City, the bastion of the Canadian francophonie, to the nation's capital.Will the member for Québec promise us that he will fight in cabinet to reverse this decision?
Mr. Speaker, what I will continue to do with Canadians is listen to their issues, make sure that we are addressing them, and move forward not only to ensure that we have a high level of economic growth in the country but that Canadians see the benefits of that growth for themselves and their families. That is what we have been doing for the last couple of years. While the members of the official opposition have been playing games, we have actually been trying to work for Canadians.The good news is, it is working, with a higher level of economic growth than we have seen in a decade and a lower level of unemployment than we have seen in a decade. We have over 450,000 more Canadians working. Jobs matter.
Mr. Speaker, we made a promise to Canadians that we will fix the immigration system to grow our economy and reunite families and eliminate the backlogs that were left behind by the Conservatives. Our multi-year immigration plan is the most ambitious yet. It supports GDP growth, attracts more investment into Canada, creates additional jobs for Canadians, and boosts innovation. We on this side of the House understand that immigration, together with a welcoming society, is what has made Canada
Mr. Speaker, we are keeping our election promise to join the Arms Trade Treaty. Regulating the illicit trade in weapons is essential for the protection of human rights.Bill C-47 would put into regulation the criteria that must be considered before authorizing export permits. As with all regulations, all Canadians will be able to provide input into developing these criteria.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Saint BonifaceSaint Vital for his question and for his leadership of the indigenous caucus.I believe that all members of this House are disturbed by the disproportionate rates of indigenous children in the child welfare system, over 50% by the most recent census. We have some of the highest rates of indigenous child apprehension in the world. That is one of the reasons I have called an emergency meeting, along with indigenous leaders. First nations, Inuit, and Métis leaders have asked for provinces and territories to come together with child welfare experts and advocates. We will find solutions, and we will work together to promote prevention and
Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the Conservatives promised to reform the Access to Information Act. They did nothing for 10 years. Their government was the first in the Commonwealth to be found in contempt of Parliament. We will take no lessons from the most secretive government of all time.
Mr. Speaker, to repeat, we have a process in this House that we work with the Ethics Commissioner so that we can expose all of our assets to her and that is in fact what I have done. In terms of disclosure, 100% disclosure is the highest number we can get. That is what I have done. That allowed her to give me recommendations on what we should do to ensure that we do not have conflicts of interest. That is what we expect all 338 members of this House to do. We will continue to respect the Ethics Commissioner. We will continue to work on behalf of Canadians, which is what we were elected to do.
Mr. Speaker, we have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to bringing equity for children in this country. As it relates to child and family services and the gaps that exist there, we recognize that we are facing a national crisis in terms of the way indigenous children are overrepresented in the child welfare system.As of this week, I have called for an emergency meeting of all appropriate partners. The provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, first nations, Inuit, and Métis will get together and we will solve this crisis together.
Mr. Speaker, I was saddened to read today that the leader of the official opposition has adopted Stephen Harper's approach to the opioid crisis. He is proposing that people with addiction issues should be arrested and incarcerated instead of being provided the help they need to stay alive and work toward a healthy future. The fact that the Conservatives want to reinstate Stephen Harper's failed strategy is irresponsible. People with addiction issues need help, not incarceration.Will the Minister of Health please update this House on her efforts to address the opioid crisis and provide needed support
Mr. Speaker, the member seems to have some trouble with numbers. What I can say is that two is less than five. Those are the numbers. What we can say is that we want to continue working with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner so that our government can be certain that it does not have conflicts of interest. That will continue to be our approach. We will work with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That is the government's method.
Mr. Speaker, since the finance minister has been exposed for hiding his assets in numerous multi-numbered companies, the Ethics Commissioner has stated that there are up to five other ministers who may be doing exactly the same thing.There is an unnamed senior government official who has decided to refute these claims, suggesting that the claims are actually wrong and her office is not correct in what it is saying.I would like to know this. The minister talks about trusting the Ethics Commissioner. Is there a senior government official over there who will actually say that there is no other minister in the same position he put himself in?
Mr. Speaker, we have full confidence in the Ethics Commissioner. We will review what the member has brought forward to the House and report back in due course.
Mr. Speaker, the answer is nothing. The answer is that I have exposed all of my assets to the Ethics Commissioner.What I can say for the record
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the President of the Treasury Board will have a lot more respect for the Information Commissioner. She said yesterday that the access to information reforms are smoke and mirrors from the Liberal government; while it is promising transparency, these reforms actually turn back the clock on the rights of citizens. It was the Information Commissioner who said that.Is the Liberal Party preparing other sponsorship scandals that it wants to keep under wraps?
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that our government is committed to living up to the highest standards. That is why we are working with the Ethics Commissioner to make sure that in all of our situations, she understands all of our assets. That is why we are taking her recommendations, as we all have, in order to move forward and ensure that none of us has conflicts of interest. We know that is the way we get to do the work we were hired to do by Canadians, which is working to continue to grow our economy and making sure that we have a fair situation where people get the benefits of that growth. That is what Canadians are seeing. That is what we will keep doing.
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was speaking to the member for Milton. I want to be clear that I was not questioning her numeracy skills. I have the highest respect for the member for Milton, who I know has had a positive business career. What I am questioning and what I would question for the member for Carleton is the numbers that he is actually focusing on. In his case, the numbers he should focus on are the more than 16,000 children in his riding who are getting the Canada child benefit, on average $520 per family. This is what we are doing for Canadians. We are making families better off so that they can actually move forward, to have confidence
Mr. Speaker, no one here thinks that it is a game to expect ministers to be held accountable, to be open, and transparent. However, there are some ministers who have been playing a game. It was called Hide the assets. In the case of the finance minister, it lasted two years. All that the opposition wants to know and all that Canadians want to know is who are the ministers who are using similar loopholes, how many are there, and when did the Prime Minister know this was going on?
Mr. Speaker, the minister is absolutely right. Canadians' trust is not a game. It is to be safeguarded, but right now, the minister is undermining it. For the past three weeks, the Prime Minister has gone on ad nauseam about how he trusts the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Now that the commissioner is saying there are two, three, or maybe four ministers playing the same game as this minister and hiding their assets from Canadians, all of a sudden the Prime Minister is saying she is wrong.My question is simple. Was the Minister of Finance actually in conflict of interest? When did the Prime Minister know about it?
Mr. Speaker, there is no issue on which I stand with a prouder sense of commitment and accomplishment than on the issue of housing. Not only in the first budget did we double the amount of money going to provinces and our partners in the municipalities, but we have now committed to a 10-year program to create the first ever national strategy for housing. This is going to be a game changer. We have consulted widely with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We have listened to their needs about repairs, about construction, and about subsidies. We will be delivering the best housing policy our country has ever seen. I can only hope the party opposite does not vote against it once again.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told the House yesterday that Liberals trust and honour the work of the Ethics Commissioner. The Prime Minister has been telling us all week to trust the Ethics Commissioner. Now the Prime Minister's Office is telling us she is wrong about the number of Liberal ministers using conflict loopholes. We trust the Ethics Commissioner. Just how many ministers have gamed the spirit of the Conflict of Interest Act?
Mr. Speaker, yes, I can say that the member opposite is wrong when he says that I did not disclose all of my assets. I worked with the Ethics Commissioner, as all of us on this side are committed to doing. We will continue to do so.What I can also say is that Canadians were right when they decided to elect our government, because they knew that we would focus on them, and not focus on playing games that are not to their advantage or their families' advantage. Happily for them, our country is in a much better situation with higher growth and a better situation for their families across this country.
Mr. Speaker, to call that answer vague would be an understatement, and I am nowhere near convinced. If the government does not provide health and security services to the people, it should hand that tax revenue over to the provinces, which do. On another matter, today the media reported that Quebec's religious neutrality law could be challenged as early as tomorrow. Quebec has the right to make its own decisions about rules governing the relationship between the state and its people. That is a fundamental right.Will the government respect Quebec's jurisdiction, as stated in the motion we adopted, and will it promise not to pay for any legal challenge to Quebec's religious neutrality law?
Mr. Speaker, as I have said to this House, I believe it is important that we work with the Ethics Commissioner. That is important. That is, in fact, exactly what I did. By exposing all of my assets, 100% of my assets, to the Ethics Commissioner when we came into office, I was able to get recommendations from her on how to best move forward to avoid conflicts of interest, as the other members of our government have done. We know that is the way we get to do the important work for Canadians, not to play games or go for personal attacks that really do not advance the cause of any Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that members opposite trust the Ethics Commissioner, as we do. We have worked with the Ethics Commissioner to make sure that we can ensure all of our situations are fully exposed and that she can provide recommendations for us on how we can ensure we do not have conflicts of interest. I can say from my standpoint that was an important exercise to ensure I do not have conflicts of interest.We will continue to do that. That allows us to get to the work we want to do on behalf of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to assure members of this House and all Canadians that we are delivering on our campaign commitment to join the Arms Trade Treaty. Tackling the illicit trade in weapons is essential for the protection of people and of human rights. Bill C-47 would put into regulations the criteria that must be considered before authorizing export permits. As with all regulations, all Canadians will be able to provide input into developing these criteria.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-47 on the Arms Trade Treaty has numerous flaws. For instance, it does not impose any firm legal limits on the authority of the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding the approval of arms exports. Furthermore, it does not cover exports to the U.S., which account for 50% of our arms exports.Experts who appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development talked about the serious concerns they have.Will the government agree to amend the bill, or even better, withdraw it and start over?
Mr. Speaker, to join the treaty, we would first have to respect it.Experts have testified to the serious problems in the bill to implement the Arms Trade Treaty. Two detailed reports have been issued that insist that the government's Bill C-47 does not reflect either the spirit or the letter of the treaty. Nothing in the bill would prevent future arms deals with human rights abusers.I ask the minister again. Will the government amend the bill or withdraw it and start over?
Mr. Speaker, as we have said, working with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is very important. That is what we have done. We have a lot of respect for her. Our government believes that this is the best way to ensure we are not in conflict of interest. We will continue to follow this approach because that is how we get to do the important work for Canadians. This really is not a game. It is very important to families across the country.
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. We know that is very important. We believe that the best way to ensure that we are not in a conflict of interest is by working with her. That way, we can do the work that is important for Canadians. That is our approach. We now have the highest rate of economic growth and the lowest rate of unemployment in a decade. That is good for Canada and Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, thinking about counting for the member for Milton, there are 25,630 children in her riding whose families are getting on average $520 more through the Canada child benefit. Those are the numbers that we know matter to Canadians.With respect to working with the Ethics Commissioner, we will continue to do so because we know that is the right way for us to fully allow us to do our work, exposing all of our assets, which all of us have done, including me, working with her and taking her recommendations to make sure we can get on with the important work we are doing for the people of Milton.
Mr. Speaker, if I am wrong, then so too must be the Ethics Commissioner who fined the finance minister for not disclosing his assets. Is that some kind of a compliance fine that she issued him? My last question for the finance minister would be that if he actually if he did disclose his assets for the past few years, will he be asking for his $200 back?
Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that, in fact, my state of mind is not irritated but actually encouraged with the economy that we are seeing for Canadians. We have seen, over two years, a very positive change in our economy. We have seen, in two years, a very positive change for middle-class Canadians and families across our country. That is what we are here to do, so we will continue to do the good work and not play the games that the other party is playing.
Mr. Speaker, we are proud to be the first government in more than 30 years to modernize the Access to Information Act. I want to be very clear on a specific issue the hon. member raised in regard to indigenous peoples.I will be very clear that we will support an amendment that would require departments to seek approval from the Information Commissioner before refusing a request. This would ensure that broad requests would not be refused simply because they were broadly applied in their descriptions. We want to ensure that this modernization of access to information strengthens the regime, and we are open to narrowing the application of this clause,
Mr. Speaker, we are the first government in 30 years to want to update the Access to Information Act, and we will work with the Information Commissioner to do so.In fact, let us be very clear. For the first time in history, our government is giving the commissioner order-making power. For the first time in history, we are actually applying the Access to Information Act to ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office. The Conservatives did nothing to modernize the act in 10 years. We are getting it done.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member for Carleton does not actually know what an asset is, but all my assets were exposed to the Ethics Commissioner. What I can say is that we continue to work on behalf of Canadians, and we will continue to do so.For the member opposite, the member for Carleton, what I can say is for the more than 16,000 children in his riding who are getting the Canada child benefit, an average of $430 per family, we are proud that we are able to help those families.
Mr. Speaker, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner clearly said that many ministers are using the same loophole that the finance minister used to hide his assets. However, the Prime Minister assured us that the finance minister was the only one to do so.The question is simple: how many other cabinet ministers are using the same loophole and who are they?
Mr. Speaker, again, we have the highest respect for the Ethics Commissioner and will continue to work with her to make sure that her work, which is so important, can continue to be done in a respectful way. That is our approach. We know that the approach to disclosing all of our assets to her is important. Taking her recommendations, which we have done, is important. That will allow us to continue to help all Canadian constituents across the country, including those who live in constituencies of members across the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister can help us out. Am I getting warmer or colder? It is more than one, but fewer than five. Is it four? Is it three? Is it two? Why can this minister not just answer simple questions?Who are the other ministers and how many are there?
Mr. Speaker, we know on this side of the House that some of the members of the opposition have a tough time counting.What we know is that the number two is less than the number five. What we can say is that there are two: one member who divested all of the assets 18 months ago and another member, me, who has divested his assets most recently. It is quite clear. It is up there on the website to see.We will continue to work with Canadians and not play these games.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say for the record that I hold the Ethics Commissioner in the highest regard. We believe that it is important that we have an officer of Parliament who helps all of us here in the House to ensure that we can expose our personal assets and do it in a way that allows us to take recommendations on how we can assure that we do not have conflicts of interest. That is our continuing approach.I will continue to work with her, as I have thus far. As I have said to this House, I have gone farther than her recommendations to make absolutely sure that in my position, there cannot be even a perception of conflict.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader if she could please tell us what business is happening for the rest of this week and next week before we go back for our Remembrance Day ceremonies.
Mr. Speaker, Parks Canada primarily exhibits the objects under its care at Parks Canada-administered national parks and national historic sites in every province and territory.In 2012, Parks Canada decided to build a purpose-built collection facility to ensure the sustainable care and management of the collection not currently on display throughout Canada. There are approximately 31 million artifacts under Parks Canada's care, and 60% of the collection is under threat due to inappropriate environmental storage conditions and lack of appropriate security.We are working to ensure the protection and preservation of the collection and its display throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, Canada's story is the story of immigration. Those who choose Canada bring with them their unique culture, skills, and an entrepreneurial spirit that strengthens our economy. My family immigrated to Canada 18 years ago to build a better life for our son. We sacrificed, we worked hard, and now I sit in the House as the member for Scarborough Centre. Could the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship please update the House on how our government's historic immigration levels plan will continue the tradition of welcoming newcomers to Canada?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right, we are very proud of our oceans protection plan, which now has approached its first-year anniversary and we have announced over 50 measures. With respect to ships that lose cargo, it is very clear that they are responsible for the cleaning. That is the situation with the Hanjin Seattle that my colleague is referring to.
Mr. Speaker, this morning we started second reading debate on Bill C-63, the budget implementation act. We will continue debate on this legislation this afternoon.Tomorrow we will commence second reading debate of Bill S-5, concerning amendments to the Tobacco Act.On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of next week, we shall continue with debate on the budget bill. Last Thursday I indicated to the House that we would allot four days of debate at second reading, which means we would expect the vote to send the bill to committee to take place on Wednesday evening. I would like to thank opposition House leaders for their co-operation in finding agreement on this timeline.On Thursday, we will resume debate on Bill C-45 on cannabis, and hope to conclude the debate at report stage. We will also be working to pass Bill C-17 on the Yukon before the next constituency week.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will not be playing games. We will focus on Canadians.For the member for ReginaQu'Appelle, we know that for the 16,090 children who have received the Canada child benefit, an average of $700 per family, it is not a game. It is helping their families. That is what we are working to do, and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work with the Ethics Commissioner. We believe that is important. It is important also to focus on how Canadian families are feeling right now. They are seeing the highest growth rate they have seen in a decade. They are seeing more than 450,000 new jobs created over the last couple of years. They are seeing the lowest rate of unemployment that they have seen, again, in a decade. This is a good situation for Canadians. We know there is much more to do. That is why we said we were going to index the Canada child benefit two years in advance. That is why we are putting in place an increase in the working income tax benefit. These are important things to help our country move forward.
Mr. Speaker, Canada's big city mayors have sounded the alarm. One in five renters spend more than half their income on housing, and 1.5 million families cannot find affordable housing.In Montreal, 25,000 families are on the waiting list for social housing, and in Toronto, 58,000 community housing units are in need of immediate repair.As the minister prepares to announce the details of his housing strategy, will he commit to investing the funding necessary to maintain and expand social housing stock?
Mr. Speaker, our position on the issue has always been clear. We will always promote and protect rights and freedoms because we believe in the importance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not for the state to say what a person can or cannot wear.We are currently examining the application of the law. I thank my colleagues for their support on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I can say that we are very proud of our historic investments in young Canadians across the country.First, we boosted the Canada summer jobs program by an unprecedented $300 million. Next, we made a historic investment in education by increasing funding for student grants by 50%. Recently, we invested $400 million to create co-op placements for young Canadians.We fully understand that an investment in youth is an investment in our country's future, and that is exactly what we will keep doing.
Mr. Speaker, our government has been working very closely with our provincial and territorial partners. There have been ongoing discussions with the provinces and territories about the appropriate taxation and price regimens to be put in place. That is part of an ongoing and important discussion. That discussion has been characterized by close co-operation and collaboration between all parties.
Time.
Most negative speeches
Shame on you, Bill, you're being dishonest. You're being very dishonest.
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is wrong, and he knows he is wrong. I disclosed all of my assets to the Ethics Commissioner and will continue to work with her. We will not play the games they are playing. We will continue to work with Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has placed the Ethics Commissioner in an impossible position, first by withholding information from the commissioner, then by claiming that she supported everything he did, but she fined him for not complying with the act. Instead of insulting MPs and insinuating that female elected representatives cannot do math, why does the finance minister not just come clean and answer the questions?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his work and his tireless efforts in this matter. Like him, I was extremely disappointed yesterday when I heard the opposition leader's outdated belief. Unlike the Conservatives, our government is actually supporting law enforcement where it matters. Rather than prosecuting those with mental health and addiction issues, we are disrupting illegal drugs at the border and diverting people out of the criminal justice system.With Bill C-37 and C-224, our government is taking a compassionate, evidence-based approach to reduce barriers to treatment and encourage innovative measures to prevent overdoses and save lives.
That is coming from the party of the sponsorship scandal, Mr. Speaker. The Information Commissioner dropped a bombshell yesterday. The Liberals' new no access to information bill, Bill C-58, will make things even worse than they were under Stephen Harper and Jean Chrétien. Ethics, cash for access, and open government were all promises made, and all promises that were broken. From the sponsorship scandal to missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls, all of this came to light through access to information.Will the minister listen to civil society, immigration groups, and first nations, and fix this bad bill?
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister did not go further. He was fined by the Ethics Commissioner for breaking the rules. Instead of owning up to it, he is clearly irritated and throwing insults. I think the finance minister may need a little break at his French villa over the next few weeks.Seriously, this is a very serious issue when the Minister of Finance is hiding assets. I have a simple question. No insults, please. What else is the finance minister hiding in his other numbered companies?
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister thinks he can make difficult questions about his secrets go away by lashing out personally against those asking those questions. Earlier today he made belittling comments about our deputy leader and others who are simply doing their jobs. The only thing that will make these questions go away is for the minister to finally answer them. The minister was hiding $20 million of Morneau Shepell shares in only one of his holding companies. Can he please tell us what else he is hiding in his other holding companies?
Mr. Speaker, it has been exactly one year since Parliament ordered the Liberal government to stop defying the Human Rights Tribunal and immediately flow that $155-million shortfall on child welfare. The government refused, saying that it would be like throwing confetti. No, it is about protecting children like 12-year-old Amy Owen, who, before she died wrote on Facebook, I am just a kid and my life is a nightmare.To the minister, stop defending the same feeble funding formula for child welfare established by Stephen Harper. Why will the minister refuse to flow that money that was ordered by the Parliament of Canada?
It is actually laughable, Mr. Speaker, to hear the finance minister talking about counting, because the thing he has been counting since he became the finance minister is the mountain of cash that he has made off Morneau Shepell shares and dividends. The Prime Minister does have a problem. He either agrees that the Ethics Commissioner is right that the finance minister broke the law, or he disagrees with her and says everything is fine. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot suck and blow at the same time. The finance minister has been found guilty and fined by the Ethics Commissioner. How could the finance minister betray the trust of Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, the member seems to have some trouble with numbers. What I can say is that two is less than five. Those are the numbers. What we can say is that we want to continue working with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner so that our government can be certain that it does not have conflicts of interest. That will continue to be our approach. We will work with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That is the government's method.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in this chamber, I had a member of the opposition come over to tell me not to take it personally because what happens here is just a game. For our government it is absolutely not a game. We are working to improve the lives of Canadians. For those 300,000 children who are being lifted out of poverty, for their parents, it is intensely personal. They care about our country and they care about their families.We will not play the games of the opposition. We are going to work on behalf of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I would be happy if the minister could tell me how I am wrong. Am I wrong when I say that the minister hid his assets for two years? Is the Ethics Commissioner wrong when she says there is more than one minister, but fewer than five? Are Canadians wrong to expect a little bit better from this finance minister and this Prime Minister?Once again, simple questions deserve simple answers. Who are the other ministers that are using the same loophole the finance minister used?
Mr. Speaker, since the finance minister has been exposed for hiding his assets in numerous multi-numbered companies, the Ethics Commissioner has stated that there are up to five other ministers who may be doing exactly the same thing.There is an unnamed senior government official who has decided to refute these claims, suggesting that the claims are actually wrong and her office is not correct in what it is saying.I would like to know this. The minister talks about trusting the Ethics Commissioner. Is there a senior government official over there who will actually say that there is no other minister in the same position he put himself in?
Mr. Speaker, who is telling the truth, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner or the Prime Minister? I do not trust the Prime Minister, so I will go with the commissioner, as the Prime Minister has asked us to do every time a Liberal scandal has erupted over the past two years. However, we see through the Prime Minister, who is using the commissioner to distract from the real problem, namely the Minister of Finance and all his cover-ups.Why is he defending the indefensible? What is the Minister of Finance hiding in his numbered companies?
Mr. Speaker, no one here thinks that it is a game to expect ministers to be held accountable, to be open, and transparent. However, there are some ministers who have been playing a game. It was called Hide the assets. In the case of the finance minister, it lasted two years. All that the opposition wants to know and all that Canadians want to know is who are the ministers who are using similar loopholes, how many are there, and when did the Prime Minister know this was going on?
Mr. Speaker, exactly no one in first nation communities believes what the minister just said. Liberals seem to have invented a whole new game. It is called Ethics Bingo. How many Liberals have secret numbered companies they have not told Canadians about? Is it one? Yes, there is one. Is it two? Oh yes, at least two. Is it three? Tell me when I get to the right one and we can all yell bingo together. Enough with the games. Here are the Prime Minister's pre-end zone instructions to his ministers: ...you must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality...and the arrangement of your private affairs should bear the closest public scrutiny. When are they actually going to live up to those words, or are they just meaningless words written on paper?
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-47 on the Arms Trade Treaty has numerous flaws. For instance, it does not impose any firm legal limits on the authority of the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding the approval of arms exports. Furthermore, it does not cover exports to the U.S., which account for 50% of our arms exports.Experts who appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development talked about the serious concerns they have.Will the government agree to amend the bill, or even better, withdraw it and start over?
Time.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told the House yesterday that Liberals trust and honour the work of the Ethics Commissioner. The Prime Minister has been telling us all week to trust the Ethics Commissioner. Now the Prime Minister's Office is telling us she is wrong about the number of Liberal ministers using conflict loopholes. We trust the Ethics Commissioner. Just how many ministers have gamed the spirit of the Conflict of Interest Act?
Mr. Speaker, the answer is nothing. The answer is that I have exposed all of my assets to the Ethics Commissioner.What I can say for the record
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the finance minister said that our deputy leader cannot count, when in fact he is the one who is 100% over his promised deficit levels. He said that others do not know what assets are, when he is the one who just forgot to report his asset, an offshore company in France, to the Ethics Commissioner. Instead of lashing out at others, why does the finance minister not just let go of all the secrets and tell Canadians what he is hiding in all of his holding companies?
Mr. Speaker, to repeat, we have a process in this House that we work with the Ethics Commissioner so that we can expose all of our assets to her and that is in fact what I have done. In terms of disclosure, 100% disclosure is the highest number we can get. That is what I have done. That allowed her to give me recommendations on what we should do to ensure that we do not have conflicts of interest. That is what we expect all 338 members of this House to do. We will continue to respect the Ethics Commissioner. We will continue to work on behalf of Canadians, which is what we were elected to do.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader if she could please tell us what business is happening for the rest of this week and next week before we go back for our Remembrance Day ceremonies.
Mr. Speaker, this morning we started second reading debate on Bill C-63, the budget implementation act. We will continue debate on this legislation this afternoon.Tomorrow we will commence second reading debate of Bill S-5, concerning amendments to the Tobacco Act.On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of next week, we shall continue with debate on the budget bill. Last Thursday I indicated to the House that we would allot four days of debate at second reading, which means we would expect the vote to send the bill to committee to take place on Wednesday evening. I would like to thank opposition House leaders for their co-operation in finding agreement on this timeline.On Thursday, we will resume debate on Bill C-45 on cannabis, and hope to conclude the debate at report stage. We will also be working to pass Bill C-17 on the Yukon before the next constituency week.
Mr. Speaker, if I am wrong, then so too must be the Ethics Commissioner who fined the finance minister for not disclosing his assets. Is that some kind of a compliance fine that she issued him? My last question for the finance minister would be that if he actually if he did disclose his assets for the past few years, will he be asking for his $200 back?
Mr. Speaker, we know on this side of the House that some of the members of the opposition have a tough time counting.What we know is that the number two is less than the number five. What we can say is that there are two: one member who divested all of the assets 18 months ago and another member, me, who has divested his assets most recently. It is quite clear. It is up there on the website to see.We will continue to work with Canadians and not play these games.
Mr. Speaker, the minister is absolutely right. Canadians' trust is not a game. It is to be safeguarded, but right now, the minister is undermining it. For the past three weeks, the Prime Minister has gone on ad nauseam about how he trusts the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Now that the commissioner is saying there are two, three, or maybe four ministers playing the same game as this minister and hiding their assets from Canadians, all of a sudden the Prime Minister is saying she is wrong.My question is simple. Was the Minister of Finance actually in conflict of interest? When did the Prime Minister know about it?
Mr. Speaker, I know the finance minister is getting irritated by the process of accountability around this place, but he did not reveal all of his assets to the Ethics Commissioner; he kept hidden his offshore company in France. That is why she found him in violation of the law and required that he pay a punitive fine. Now he is hiding other assets within different holding companies. He could make these questions go away if he would simply tell Canadians what he is hiding in his vast network of numbered companies and trust funds.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will not be playing games. We will focus on Canadians.For the member for ReginaQu'Appelle, we know that for the 16,090 children who have received the Canada child benefit, an average of $700 per family, it is not a game. It is helping their families. That is what we are working to do, and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I was saddened to read today that the leader of the official opposition has adopted Stephen Harper's approach to the opioid crisis. He is proposing that people with addiction issues should be arrested and incarcerated instead of being provided the help they need to stay alive and work toward a healthy future. The fact that the Conservatives want to reinstate Stephen Harper's failed strategy is irresponsible. People with addiction issues need help, not incarceration.Will the Minister of Health please update this House on her efforts to address the opioid crisis and provide needed support
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the issue of contradictory information given to members regarding the number of cabinet ministers who are currently using a conflict of interest loophole to avoid divesting personal investments or putting them in a blind trust. This contradictory information has been provided by an officer of Parliament, the Ethics Commissioner, and by the Prime Minister. The Ethics Commissioner has said that a number of Liberal cabinet ministers hold controlled assets indirectly, but the Prime Minister contends that only the finance minister does and that he is now in the process of selling shares in Morneau Shepell and setting up a blind trust in the meantime. When pressed to clarify if the Prime Minister was correct in his assertion that the Minister of Finance is the lone minister exploiting a loophole, Ms. Dawson's office confirmed via an email from her spokesperson, Jocelyne Brisebois, which states: The Office still maintains that there are fewer than five ministers who have controlled assets and no we were not wrong about the information provided in our statement to you. We can say fewer than five ministers, including [the finance minister]. That is, she says the commissioner's office was not wrong.However, on Tuesday, the Prime Minister insisted in the Commons that the finance minister is the only one of his 30 ministers who is currently exploiting this loophole. On page 111 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May, it states that, The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.On February 1, 2002, the Speaker then ruled on a matter in regard to the former minister of national defence: The hon. member for PortageLisgar alleged that the Minister of National Defence deliberately misled the House as to when he knew that prisoners taken by Canadian JTF2 troops in Afghanistan had been handed over to the Americans. In support of that allegation, he cited the minister's responses in question period on two successive days... The Speaker considered the matter and found there was a prima facie question of privilege. He said: The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House. The authorities to which Speaker Milliken was referring include but are not limited to the following. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 115, Misleading a Minister or a Member has also been considered a form of obstruction and thus a prima facie breach of privilege.When the Speaker, in 2002, accepted the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House, he stated that Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation. The Speaker then referred to the first edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 67: There are...affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges...the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; [or that] obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties... The Speaker went on to say: On the basis of the arguments presented by hon. members and in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. I therefore invite the hon. member for PortageLisgar to move his motion. On February 17, 2011, the member for ScarboroughGuildwood and other members argued that a minister had made statements in committee that were different from those made in the House or provided to the House in written form. These members argued that the material available showed that contradictory information had been provided. As a result, they argued that this demonstrated that the minister deliberately misled the House and that as such a prima facie case of privilege existed.In a ruling of March 9, 2011, the Speaker then pointed out: ...when asked who inserted the word not in the assessment of the KAIROS funding application, in testimony [before the committee] the minister twice replied that she did not know. In a February 14 statement to the House, while she did not indicate that she knew who inserted the word not, the minister addressed this matter by stating that the not was inserted at her direction. At the very least, it can be said that this has caused confusion. The minister has acknowledged this, and has characterized her own handling of the matter as unfortunate. Yet as is evident from hearing the various interventions that have been made since then, the confusion persists. As the member for ScarboroughRouge River told the House, this has confused me. It has confused Parliament. It has confused us in our exercise of holding the government to account, whether it is the Privy Council, whether it is the minister, whether it is public officials; we cannot do our job when there is that type of confusion. In the case raised on February 17, 2011, the contradictory information involved information provided to a committee and information provided to the House. In this case, we have information provided to the House that is contradictory to information provided by an officer of Parliament.On page 222 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, sixth edition, it states that Committees are regarded as creatures of the House.The House of Commons publication Committees Practical Guide states that committees are central to the operations of the House of Commons and allow for detailed examination of complex matters, which offers an opportunity for members to hear from Canadians and experts on topics of national concern and to have these representations placed on the public record. They provide a means for members to probe into the details of policies and programs, thereby further developing an expertise in certain areas. The Privy Council Office, and some governmental documents, refers to the officers of Parliament as Agents of Parliament, thereby emphasizing that they carry out work for Parliament and are responsible to Parliament, and as a means of distinguishing them from other officers and officials of Parliament. It also emphasizes their independence from the government of the day. These officers of Parliament carry out duties assigned by statute, and report to one or both of the Senate and House of Commons. The individuals appointed to these offices perform work on behalf of Parliament, and report to the chambers, usually through the Speakers. I argue that information flowing from an officer of Parliament holds as much weight as information flowing from a standing committee, and when this information is contradictory and confuses Parliament, as it has, there is a need to direct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to look at this in the guise of a breach of privilege. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner issued a statement today that said: The Globe and Mail reported this morning that the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is at odds with the Prime Minister over how many cabinet ministers currently hold controlled assets indirectly. This is, in fact, not the case. The Office did not wish to give an exact number when asked how many cabinet ministers indirectly hold controlled assets. The Office indicated fewer than five, giving a general sense of an upper limit to the number, meaning it could be one, two, three or four. This does not clarify anything, and it certainly confuses the issues further. I ask that you find a prima facie question of privilege here. I am prepared to move the proper motion to allow the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to get to the bottom of this matter.If you have any doubts, Mr. Speaker, I refer you to a ruling given on March 21, 1978, at page 3,975 of Debates, which is also referred to in Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, at page 227, where Speaker Jerome quoted a British procedure committee report of 1967, which states in part: ...the Speaker should ask himself [I am sure he meant to say himself or herself], when he has to decide whether to grant precedence over other public business to a motion which a Member who has complained of some act or conduct as constituting a breach of privilege desires to move, should be notdo I consider that, assuming that the facts are as stated, the act or conduct constitutes a breach of privilege, but could it reasonably be held to be a breach of privilege, or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should, in my view, leave it to the House. Mr. Speaker, I submit this matter to your wise judgment.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I spoke with a member of the opposition. He told me that it was not personal, that what happens here in the House is just a game. For us, it is not a game. It is really important to Canadians. We know that for the 300,000 children lifted out of poverty, it is intensely personal. We will continue to work with Canadians to improve the Canada's situation. That is our goal.
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?
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the Liberals are centralists. They centralized decision-making on regional economic development in Toronto, and they centralized political decision-making on issues such as the elimination of the political lieutenant for Quebec in Ottawa. They are now preparing to centralize the arts by transferring a wide range of artifacts from Quebec City, the bastion of the Canadian francophonie, to the nation's capital.Will the member for Québec promise us that he will fight in cabinet to reverse this decision?
Mr. Speaker, our position on the issue has always been clear. We will always promote and protect rights and freedoms because we believe in the importance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not for the state to say what a person can or cannot wear.We are currently examining the application of the law. I thank my colleagues for their support on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, that minister hid an offshore company in France, and then he hid $20 million of Morneau Shepell shares from Canadians. Now that Canadians know he held those shares, because of investigative journalism and not because of his transparency, he has admitted that it was not the right thing to do, has sold those shares, and is now saying he will give back the ill-gotten gains. We need to know what other inappropriate investments the minister might be hiding in his holding companies. Why does he not tell us what is in those companies?
Mr. Speaker, our strategy is to continue improving the lives of Canadian families and the middle class across the country. That is what matters. That is why we introduced the Canada child benefit, which makes life better for 300,000 children. That is why we improved the working income tax benefit for Canadians who are seriously struggling. We will continue to work for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, Parks Canada primarily exhibits the objects under its care at Parks Canada-administered national parks and national historic sites in every province and territory.In 2012, Parks Canada decided to build a purpose-built collection facility to ensure the sustainable care and management of the collection not currently on display throughout Canada. There are approximately 31 million artifacts under Parks Canada's care, and 60% of the collection is under threat due to inappropriate environmental storage conditions and lack of appropriate security.We are working to ensure the protection and preservation of the collection and its display throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, to join the treaty, we would first have to respect it.Experts have testified to the serious problems in the bill to implement the Arms Trade Treaty. Two detailed reports have been issued that insist that the government's Bill C-47 does not reflect either the spirit or the letter of the treaty. Nothing in the bill would prevent future arms deals with human rights abusers.I ask the minister again. Will the government amend the bill or withdraw it and start over?
Mr. Speaker, marijuana growers in my riding of KootenayColumbia have formed a co-op to advance their rights. They are concerned that the government will not license growers who farm outdoors and that licensing will go only to large corporate indoor growers. Indeed, Liberals on the health committee already voted down an NDP motion to allow provinces to develop production regimes that would support local economies.As the government moves to legalize the recreational use of cannabis, will it stand with and support economically important, small-scale outdoor farmers across Canada and ensure that they have a future, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, Canada's big city mayors have sounded the alarm. One in five renters spend more than half their income on housing, and 1.5 million families cannot find affordable housing.In Montreal, 25,000 families are on the waiting list for social housing, and in Toronto, 58,000 community housing units are in need of immediate repair.As the minister prepares to announce the details of his housing strategy, will he commit to investing the funding necessary to maintain and expand social housing stock?
Mr. Speaker, what I can say to the member opposite is: wrong again.What happened here is that I disclosed all of my assets, and in fact there was an administrative error that we satisfied the commissioner with the $200 fine I paid. We are trying to work to help Canadians and not play the games that the members opposite are trying to play, because we know that was what we were elected to do. For all of those Canadians who looked at what we announced last week, the level of growth our country is seeing, and the improvements we are going to make in the Canada child benefit and the working income tax benefit, we are going to tell them that we are working for them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring to your attention a grave and disturbing matter that occurred yesterday while riding the House of Commons bus. I stand with a very heavy heart for this point of order because it was exactly for that reason I went into politics, to be a voice for the most vulnerable and fight for the rights of women, especially immigrant women, and bring their voice to Ottawa to fight against racism, agism, and sexism.Now I will state the facts. I was sitting on an outside seat when the member for SpadinaFort York entered the bus. The member stopped and hovered over me. He began to wave his hand in my face, chastised and intimidated me for something I said in the House earlier in the day. Yesterday, during question period, the Prime Minister was giving one of his non-answers to a question about the government transferring up to half a billion dollars into the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, while at the same time the PBO reported the government was behind on infrastructure spending within Canada. With great emotion and pride, I said Canada is our home. For some reason, the member took issue with my statement and began to intimidate me for raising it, making suggestions to alternative statements I could have made. I did not have time to give you the proper notice of a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, but I reserve the right to do so. I do so for the following reasons. Responding to threats was among the first matters of parliamentary privilege dealt with in Canada. Page 198 of the second edition of Joseph Maginot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada tells us of an incident in 1758 where the Nova Scotia House of Assembly proceeded against someone who made threats against a member. In a ruling on September 19, 1973, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, at page 6709 of the Debates, stated that he had: no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats and attempts at intimidation. Mr. Speaker Bosley, on May 16, 1986, at page 13362 of Debates, ruled that the threat or attempt to intimidate could not be hypothetical, but that it must be real or have occurred. I have a whole bus of passengers who witnessed this whole incident.On March 24, 1994, at page 2705 of Debates, Mr. Speaker Parent said: Threats of blackmail or intimidation of a member of Parliament should never be taken lightly. When such occurs, the very essence of free speech is undermined. Without the guarantee of freedom of speech, no member of Parliament can do his duty as expected. This attempt to intimidate me was directly linked to what I said in the House earlier in the day, and that, Mr. Speaker, should be grounds enough to warrant a favourable ruling for a question of privilege.Hiding behind a prime minister who claims to be a feminist does not give the member the right to intimidate another member of the same House of another party. Female members of all three parties were on the bus. They witnessed everything he did and how he intimidated me. Therefore, I reserve the right for a question of privilege with proper notice.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the opposition was levelling baseless accusations. Today, the Liberals are accusing the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner of providing false information about their own minister's situation. I wonder who are the ones making baseless accusations in the House.My question is simple: now that we know that his finance minister is in a direct conflict of interest, I would like to know why the Prime Minister misled Parliament and all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, we have full confidence in the Ethics Commissioner. We will review what the member has brought forward to the House and report back in due course.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is blaming everybody but the finance minister or himself for the scandal that is before us. The Prime Minister is all but directly blaming the Ethics Commissioner, blaming the Ethics Commissioner for the finance minister's several inexcusable lapses of judgment and for the Prime Minister's own willingness to look the other way.Why is the Prime Minister misleading Parliament about other ministers' actions? Is the Prime Minister's Office calling the Ethics Commissioner a liar?
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the indulgence. I only offer a small commentary, in addition to what we have heard.My friend has pointed out that the Prime Minister made a statement in the House that there was only one of his ministers, the Minister of Finance who was using this ethical loophole, this numbered company. We have to take members at their word that, when they speak in the House, that word is speaking the truth.We then had the unfortunate situation in which the Ethics Commissioner, when contacted by the media to clarify if the Prime Minister was in fact correct that there was only one of his ministers who had broken his own promise that things would be divulged, had to then essentially correct the Prime Minister saying that her earlier statement was still true.Now the reasons she has as Ethics Commissioner to keep the number somewhat vague, as less than five but more than one, is something that is at her discretion. That is not for us to judge.The concern we have not only is the potential case in which the Prime Minister may have misled the House of Commons on an important issue facing Canadians, but it is also thatafter so many weeks upon weeks of Liberal ministers, including the Prime Minister and the finance minister, saying how much faith they had in the Ethics Commissionerin effect they are using Parliament and parliamentary privilege to undermine the Ethics Commissioner's own statements to the Canadian public.Canadians are wondering what is going on within the Liberal cabinet. This is important in terms of our being able to do our jobs as opposition members on behalf of Canadians. Our job, primarily, is to hold the government to account, to find out what the government is and is not doing, and to find out whether it is keeping good faith with Canadians.I will remind the Speaker and all members that, in both their mandate letters and in the declaration from the Prime Minister, the instruction was crystal clear: they were not to simply follow the letter of the law, of the Conflict of Interest Act, but also the spirit of the law, and second, they were to make available all of their personal assets and holdings to the fullest public scrutiny.That is what the Prime Minister of this country promised us. That is what the Prime Minister later went on to contradict, both in word and deed.I look forward to your ruling on this, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to finally settling this matter, which can only be done, by the way, by the Prime Minister, his finance minister, and the other ministers in his cabinet who have been holding secret accounts in numbered companies, withholding that information from Canadians, which has put them in an obvious case of conflict of interest, from my perspective and that of others.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Youth brags about working to give young people better opportunities, but according to Generation Squeeze, government spending on youth programming is down $19 billion compared with 40 years ago.This is mystifying, given that youth today are worse off than people their age were 40 years ago, despite being more likely to have post-secondary degrees. They certainly have no shortage of needs, including funding for post-secondary studies, access to affordable housing, help to cope with growing food insecurity, and a national daycare system, to name but a few.When will the Minister of Youth finally put his money where his mouth is and support youth?
Mr. Speaker, to call that answer vague would be an understatement, and I am nowhere near convinced. If the government does not provide health and security services to the people, it should hand that tax revenue over to the provinces, which do. On another matter, today the media reported that Quebec's religious neutrality law could be challenged as early as tomorrow. Quebec has the right to make its own decisions about rules governing the relationship between the state and its people. That is a fundamental right.Will the government respect Quebec's jurisdiction, as stated in the motion we adopted, and will it promise not to pay for any legal challenge to Quebec's religious neutrality law?
Mr. Speaker, there is no issue on which I stand with a prouder sense of commitment and accomplishment than on the issue of housing. Not only in the first budget did we double the amount of money going to provinces and our partners in the municipalities, but we have now committed to a 10-year program to create the first ever national strategy for housing. This is going to be a game changer. We have consulted widely with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We have listened to their needs about repairs, about construction, and about subsidies. We will be delivering the best housing policy our country has ever seen. I can only hope the party opposite does not vote against it once again.
Mr. Speaker, are these ethical standards if the Liberals cannot even enforce the bare minimum they should be following?The Prime Minister is showing his contempt for the House, which is calling for explanations for his ethical lapses and those of his government.However, the facts are clear. This Prime Minister is still under investigation for his trip to the Aga Khan's private island. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has identified one, two, three, four minsters who are using the loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act.The commissioner is also concerned about the role the minister played in Bill C-27. This government said that it would live up to the highest ethical standards.Why then can the government not even enforce the bare minimum?
Mr. Speaker, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner clearly said that many ministers are using the same loophole that the finance minister used to hide his assets. However, the Prime Minister assured us that the finance minister was the only one to do so.The question is simple: how many other cabinet ministers are using the same loophole and who are they?
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the President of the Treasury Board will have a lot more respect for the Information Commissioner. She said yesterday that the access to information reforms are smoke and mirrors from the Liberal government; while it is promising transparency, these reforms actually turn back the clock on the rights of citizens. It was the Information Commissioner who said that.Is the Liberal Party preparing other sponsorship scandals that it wants to keep under wraps?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise my point of order at this point, before I go on with the Thursday question.I rise on a point of order regarding comments just made during question period. The Minister of Finance said directly that our deputy leader did not know how to count. Our deputy leader has been a member of Parliament here for nine years. She has a law degree from Osgoode Hall Law School. She has been a CEO. She clearly knows how to count, and so much more. These are some of the reasons, many times, women do not want to get involved in the political process. When maybe things are tough, insults like thatBimbo, You don't know how to count, You're not smart, You're a puppetare hurled at women politicians and at women in general. I hope that is not what the Minister of Finance was trying to do, but I would like to give him the opportunity to apologize to our very qualified, very smart, and very capable deputy House leader.
Mr. Speaker, one thing we can all agree on is that the Minister of Finance needs help in one thing in counting: he better count on getting some better communications advice.The Prime Minister said this week: ...I am not trying to blame the Ethics Commissioner, I am trying to trust the Ethics Commissioner. That is what opposition members need to do. That is exactly what we are doing as well. After weeks of misleading and memory lapses, the Government of Canada has shown that it does not trust the Ethics Commissioner, but I think Canadians actually do.The minister put himself in a direct conflict, and he broke the law when he failed to disclose
Mr. Speaker, Canada's story is the story of immigration. Those who choose Canada bring with them their unique culture, skills, and an entrepreneurial spirit that strengthens our economy. My family immigrated to Canada 18 years ago to build a better life for our son. We sacrificed, we worked hard, and now I sit in the House as the member for Scarborough Centre. Could the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship please update the House on how our government's historic immigration levels plan will continue the tradition of welcoming newcomers to Canada?
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was speaking to the member for Milton. I want to be clear that I was not questioning her numeracy skills. I have the highest respect for the member for Milton, who I know has had a positive business career. What I am questioning and what I would question for the member for Carleton is the numbers that he is actually focusing on. In his case, the numbers he should focus on are the more than 16,000 children in his riding who are getting the Canada child benefit, on average $520 per family. This is what we are doing for Canadians. We are making families better off so that they can actually move forward, to have confidence
Mr. Speaker, we are keeping our election promise to join the Arms Trade Treaty. Regulating the illicit trade in weapons is essential for the protection of human rights.Bill C-47 would put into regulation the criteria that must be considered before authorizing export permits. As with all regulations, all Canadians will be able to provide input into developing these criteria.
Mr. Speaker, today on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the Hanjin Seattle cargo ship debris spill in my riding, I tabled a motion to address coastal debris. Still, community groups are leading cleanup efforts without any help from the current government. Government officials have indicated that there is a near-complete legislative and regulatory void for coastal debris cleanup, and that there is no dedicated fund.The Liberals love talking about their world-class oceans protection plan, but nothing is happening. I have a simple question. Will the minister create a permanent dedicated annual fund for coastal debris cleanup?
Mr. Speaker, we made a promise to Canadians that we will fix the immigration system to grow our economy and reunite families and eliminate the backlogs that were left behind by the Conservatives. Our multi-year immigration plan is the most ambitious yet. It supports GDP growth, attracts more investment into Canada, creates additional jobs for Canadians, and boosts innovation. We on this side of the House understand that immigration, together with a welcoming society, is what has made Canada
Mr. Speaker, the only way to know if he is making Canadians better off instead of just making himself better off is just to reveal what investments he has held over the last two years in his vast network of holding companies and trust funds. We just recently found out that the minister was taking $65,000 a month in dividends from a company that he simultaneously regulated. He introduced a bill that would help that company.The only way to put all of this to bed and put an end to these questions for the minister is for him to come clean and tell us what he is hiding in those
Mr. Speaker, we are the first government in 30 years to want to update the Access to Information Act, and we will work with the Information Commissioner to do so.In fact, let us be very clear. For the first time in history, our government is giving the commissioner order-making power. For the first time in history, we are actually applying the Access to Information Act to ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office. The Conservatives did nothing to modernize the act in 10 years. We are getting it done.
Mr. Speaker, we are proud to be the first government in more than 30 years to modernize the Access to Information Act. I want to be very clear on a specific issue the hon. member raised in regard to indigenous peoples.I will be very clear that we will support an amendment that would require departments to seek approval from the Information Commissioner before refusing a request. This would ensure that broad requests would not be refused simply because they were broadly applied in their descriptions. We want to ensure that this modernization of access to information strengthens the regime, and we are open to narrowing the application of this clause,
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said from the start, no relationship is more important to our government than our relationship with indigenous peoples. That is why the Prime Minister announced the dismantling of the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs. As we all know, far too many indigenous children end up in the child welfare system in Canada. We know the system is broken, and we know the system must be fixed. Could the Minister of Indigenous Services please update the House as to what is being done to protect the health and safety of indigenous children?
Mr. Speaker, I can say that we are very proud of our historic investments in young Canadians across the country.First, we boosted the Canada summer jobs program by an unprecedented $300 million. Next, we made a historic investment in education by increasing funding for student grants by 50%. Recently, we invested $400 million to create co-op placements for young Canadians.We fully understand that an investment in youth is an investment in our country's future, and that is exactly what we will keep doing.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Saint BonifaceSaint Vital for his question and for his leadership of the indigenous caucus.I believe that all members of this House are disturbed by the disproportionate rates of indigenous children in the child welfare system, over 50% by the most recent census. We have some of the highest rates of indigenous child apprehension in the world. That is one of the reasons I have called an emergency meeting, along with indigenous leaders. First nations, Inuit, and Métis leaders have asked for provinces and territories to come together with child welfare experts and advocates. We will find solutions, and we will work together to promote prevention and
Mr. Speaker, to repeat, working with the Ethics Commissioner is the approach we have in this House. It is to respect the officer of Parliament who has that duty. That is what we will continue to do. It allows us to do the work we have been asked to do on behalf of Canadians. We will not get distracted by the games from the other side. We will not get distracted by the personal attacks. We will continue to be focused on Canadians. That focus is working. Canadians are in a much better situation two years later than they were when we came into office, so we will continue to do that good work on behalf of them.
Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister can help us out. Am I getting warmer or colder? It is more than one, but fewer than five. Is it four? Is it three? Is it two? Why can this minister not just answer simple questions?Who are the other ministers and how many are there?
Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that, in fact, my state of mind is not irritated but actually encouraged with the economy that we are seeing for Canadians. We have seen, over two years, a very positive change in our economy. We have seen, in two years, a very positive change for middle-class Canadians and families across our country. That is what we are here to do, so we will continue to do the good work and not play the games that the other party is playing.
Mr. Speaker, displacing artifacts like that and bringing them here is an outrage.Bill C-63 revealed that the government wants to start taxing pot. That is another way of stirring up trouble in Quebec and lining their own pockets. We know that Quebec, not Ottawa, will have to pick up the tab for costs related to health and security. Will the government promise to leave that money to Quebec, or will it once again try to line its own pockets without even doing a thing?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say for the record that I hold the Ethics Commissioner in the highest regard. We believe that it is important that we have an officer of Parliament who helps all of us here in the House to ensure that we can expose our personal assets and do it in a way that allows us to take recommendations on how we can assure that we do not have conflicts of interest. That is our continuing approach.I will continue to work with her, as I have thus far. As I have said to this House, I have gone farther than her recommendations to make absolutely sure that in my position, there cannot be even a perception of conflict.
Mr. Speaker, what I will continue to do with Canadians is listen to their issues, make sure that we are addressing them, and move forward not only to ensure that we have a high level of economic growth in the country but that Canadians see the benefits of that growth for themselves and their families. That is what we have been doing for the last couple of years. While the members of the official opposition have been playing games, we have actually been trying to work for Canadians.The good news is, it is working, with a higher level of economic growth than we have seen in a decade and a lower level of unemployment than we have seen in a decade. We have over 450,000 more Canadians working. Jobs matter.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is, and always will be, associated with the sponsorship scandal.Canadians believed that the Liberals got the message, but they did not get it at all. The Liberal government is introducing a bill on access to information that would prevent the excellent work of journalists, people like Daniel Leblanc and others, from revealing things like the sponsorship scandal. We are not the ones saying so. Yesterday, the Information Commissioner said: ...I went back to the request...that uncovered the sponsorship scandal and that request would not meet their new requirement under [this bill]. Why does the Liberal Party want to hide other sponsorship scandals?
Mr. Speaker, after more than 30 years, we are the first government to modernize the Access to Information Act, and we are applying it to ministers' offices through proactive disclosure. I understand why the NDP does not like proactive disclosure. When we were in opposition and the Prime Minister was the leader of the Liberals in opposition, he led the charge on proactive disclosure of MPs' expenses. The Conservatives signed on to it quite quickly, but the NDP members were dragged kicking and screaming to disclose their expenses to the Canadian public. They did not like proactive disclosure then, and they do not like it today.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member for Carleton does not actually know what an asset is, but all my assets were exposed to the Ethics Commissioner. What I can say is that we continue to work on behalf of Canadians, and we will continue to do so.For the member opposite, the member for Carleton, what I can say is for the more than 16,000 children in his riding who are getting the Canada child benefit, an average of $430 per family, we are proud that we are able to help those families.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said to this House, I believe it is important that we work with the Ethics Commissioner. That is important. That is, in fact, exactly what I did. By exposing all of my assets, 100% of my assets, to the Ethics Commissioner when we came into office, I was able to get recommendations from her on how to best move forward to avoid conflicts of interest, as the other members of our government have done. We know that is the way we get to do the important work for Canadians, not to play games or go for personal attacks that really do not advance the cause of any Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, thinking about counting for the member for Milton, there are 25,630 children in her riding whose families are getting on average $520 more through the Canada child benefit. Those are the numbers that we know matter to Canadians.With respect to working with the Ethics Commissioner, we will continue to do so because we know that is the right way for us to fully allow us to do our work, exposing all of our assets, which all of us have done, including me, working with her and taking her recommendations to make sure we can get on with the important work we are doing for the people of Milton.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to assure members of this House and all Canadians that we are delivering on our campaign commitment to join the Arms Trade Treaty. Tackling the illicit trade in weapons is essential for the protection of people and of human rights. Bill C-47 would put into regulations the criteria that must be considered before authorizing export permits. As with all regulations, all Canadians will be able to provide input into developing these criteria.
Mr. Speaker, yes, I can say that the member opposite is wrong when he says that I did not disclose all of my assets. I worked with the Ethics Commissioner, as all of us on this side are committed to doing. We will continue to do so.What I can also say is that Canadians were right when they decided to elect our government, because they knew that we would focus on them, and not focus on playing games that are not to their advantage or their families' advantage. Happily for them, our country is in a much better situation with higher growth and a better situation for their families across this country.
Mr. Speaker, our government has been working very closely with our provincial and territorial partners. There have been ongoing discussions with the provinces and territories about the appropriate taxation and price regimens to be put in place. That is part of an ongoing and important discussion. That discussion has been characterized by close co-operation and collaboration between all parties.
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work with the Ethics Commissioner. We believe that is important. It is important also to focus on how Canadian families are feeling right now. They are seeing the highest growth rate they have seen in a decade. They are seeing more than 450,000 new jobs created over the last couple of years. They are seeing the lowest rate of unemployment that they have seen, again, in a decade. This is a good situation for Canadians. We know there is much more to do. That is why we said we were going to index the Canada child benefit two years in advance. That is why we are putting in place an increase in the working income tax benefit. These are important things to help our country move forward.
Mr. Speaker, we have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to bringing equity for children in this country. As it relates to child and family services and the gaps that exist there, we recognize that we are facing a national crisis in terms of the way indigenous children are overrepresented in the child welfare system.As of this week, I have called for an emergency meeting of all appropriate partners. The provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, first nations, Inuit, and Métis will get together and we will solve this crisis together.
Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the Conservatives promised to reform the Access to Information Act. They did nothing for 10 years. Their government was the first in the Commonwealth to be found in contempt of Parliament. We will take no lessons from the most secretive government of all time.
Mr. Speaker, again, we have the highest respect for the Ethics Commissioner and will continue to work with her to make sure that her work, which is so important, can continue to be done in a respectful way. That is our approach. We know that the approach to disclosing all of our assets to her is important. Taking her recommendations, which we have done, is important. That will allow us to continue to help all Canadian constituents across the country, including those who live in constituencies of members across the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that members opposite trust the Ethics Commissioner, as we do. We have worked with the Ethics Commissioner to make sure that we can ensure all of our situations are fully exposed and that she can provide recommendations for us on how we can ensure we do not have conflicts of interest. I can say from my standpoint that was an important exercise to ensure I do not have conflicts of interest.We will continue to do that. That allows us to get to the work we want to do on behalf of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right, we are very proud of our oceans protection plan, which now has approached its first-year anniversary and we have announced over 50 measures. With respect to ships that lose cargo, it is very clear that they are responsible for the cleaning. That is the situation with the Hanjin Seattle that my colleague is referring to.
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is the hon. member for Toronto Centre, but it is not honourable to suggest that our deputy leader cannot count. It is not honourable to suggest that our finance critic is obtuse. It is not honourable for the member to deny his own mistakes and his own omissions. When will the hon. member do the right thing and apologize to Canadians for his mistakes?
Mr. Speaker, as we have said, working with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is very important. That is what we have done. We have a lot of respect for her. Our government believes that this is the best way to ensure we are not in conflict of interest. We will continue to follow this approach because that is how we get to do the important work for Canadians. This really is not a game. It is very important to families across the country.
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. We know that is very important. We believe that the best way to ensure that we are not in a conflict of interest is by working with her. That way, we can do the work that is important for Canadians. That is our approach. We now have the highest rate of economic growth and the lowest rate of unemployment in a decade. That is good for Canada and Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that our government is committed to living up to the highest standards. That is why we are working with the Ethics Commissioner to make sure that in all of our situations, she understands all of our assets. That is why we are taking her recommendations, as we all have, in order to move forward and ensure that none of us has conflicts of interest. We know that is the way we get to do the work we were hired to do by Canadians, which is working to continue to grow our economy and making sure that we have a fair situation where people get the benefits of that growth. That is what Canadians are seeing. That is what we will keep doing.
Mr. Speaker, our government has introduced a comprehensive framework for the strict regulation of the production, distribution, and consumption of cannabis. We have been working collaboratively with our provincial and territorial partners. Health Canada administers a very effective system of licensing for those who meet the requirements of that regulation to ensure that what will be consumed by Canadians is of known potency and purity. Those rules are important for the health and safety of all Canadians, and we will continue to promote them.
Shame on you, Bill, you're being dishonest. You're being very dishonest.
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is wrong, and he knows he is wrong. I disclosed all of my assets to the Ethics Commissioner and will continue to work with her. We will not play the games they are playing. We will continue to work with Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has placed the Ethics Commissioner in an impossible position, first by withholding information from the commissioner, then by claiming that she supported everything he did, but she fined him for not complying with the act. Instead of insulting MPs and insinuating that female elected representatives cannot do math, why does the finance minister not just come clean and answer the questions?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his work and his tireless efforts in this matter. Like him, I was extremely disappointed yesterday when I heard the opposition leader's outdated belief. Unlike the Conservatives, our government is actually supporting law enforcement where it matters. Rather than prosecuting those with mental health and addiction issues, we are disrupting illegal drugs at the border and diverting people out of the criminal justice system.With Bill C-37 and C-224, our government is taking a compassionate, evidence-based approach to reduce barriers to treatment and encourage innovative measures to prevent overdoses and save lives.
That is coming from the party of the sponsorship scandal, Mr. Speaker. The Information Commissioner dropped a bombshell yesterday. The Liberals' new no access to information bill, Bill C-58, will make things even worse than they were under Stephen Harper and Jean Chrétien. Ethics, cash for access, and open government were all promises made, and all promises that were broken. From the sponsorship scandal to missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls, all of this came to light through access to information.Will the minister listen to civil society, immigration groups, and first nations, and fix this bad bill?
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister did not go further. He was fined by the Ethics Commissioner for breaking the rules. Instead of owning up to it, he is clearly irritated and throwing insults. I think the finance minister may need a little break at his French villa over the next few weeks.Seriously, this is a very serious issue when the Minister of Finance is hiding assets. I have a simple question. No insults, please. What else is the finance minister hiding in his other numbered companies?
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister thinks he can make difficult questions about his secrets go away by lashing out personally against those asking those questions. Earlier today he made belittling comments about our deputy leader and others who are simply doing their jobs. The only thing that will make these questions go away is for the minister to finally answer them. The minister was hiding $20 million of Morneau Shepell shares in only one of his holding companies. Can he please tell us what else he is hiding in his other holding companies?
Mr. Speaker, it has been exactly one year since Parliament ordered the Liberal government to stop defying the Human Rights Tribunal and immediately flow that $155-million shortfall on child welfare. The government refused, saying that it would be like throwing confetti. No, it is about protecting children like 12-year-old Amy Owen, who, before she died wrote on Facebook, I am just a kid and my life is a nightmare.To the minister, stop defending the same feeble funding formula for child welfare established by Stephen Harper. Why will the minister refuse to flow that money that was ordered by the Parliament of Canada?
It is actually laughable, Mr. Speaker, to hear the finance minister talking about counting, because the thing he has been counting since he became the finance minister is the mountain of cash that he has made off Morneau Shepell shares and dividends. The Prime Minister does have a problem. He either agrees that the Ethics Commissioner is right that the finance minister broke the law, or he disagrees with her and says everything is fine. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot suck and blow at the same time. The finance minister has been found guilty and fined by the Ethics Commissioner. How could the finance minister betray the trust of Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, the member seems to have some trouble with numbers. What I can say is that two is less than five. Those are the numbers. What we can say is that we want to continue working with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner so that our government can be certain that it does not have conflicts of interest. That will continue to be our approach. We will work with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That is the government's method.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in this chamber, I had a member of the opposition come over to tell me not to take it personally because what happens here is just a game. For our government it is absolutely not a game. We are working to improve the lives of Canadians. For those 300,000 children who are being lifted out of poverty, for their parents, it is intensely personal. They care about our country and they care about their families.We will not play the games of the opposition. We are going to work on behalf of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I would be happy if the minister could tell me how I am wrong. Am I wrong when I say that the minister hid his assets for two years? Is the Ethics Commissioner wrong when she says there is more than one minister, but fewer than five? Are Canadians wrong to expect a little bit better from this finance minister and this Prime Minister?Once again, simple questions deserve simple answers. Who are the other ministers that are using the same loophole the finance minister used?
Mr. Speaker, since the finance minister has been exposed for hiding his assets in numerous multi-numbered companies, the Ethics Commissioner has stated that there are up to five other ministers who may be doing exactly the same thing.There is an unnamed senior government official who has decided to refute these claims, suggesting that the claims are actually wrong and her office is not correct in what it is saying.I would like to know this. The minister talks about trusting the Ethics Commissioner. Is there a senior government official over there who will actually say that there is no other minister in the same position he put himself in?
Mr. Speaker, who is telling the truth, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner or the Prime Minister? I do not trust the Prime Minister, so I will go with the commissioner, as the Prime Minister has asked us to do every time a Liberal scandal has erupted over the past two years. However, we see through the Prime Minister, who is using the commissioner to distract from the real problem, namely the Minister of Finance and all his cover-ups.Why is he defending the indefensible? What is the Minister of Finance hiding in his numbered companies?
Mr. Speaker, no one here thinks that it is a game to expect ministers to be held accountable, to be open, and transparent. However, there are some ministers who have been playing a game. It was called Hide the assets. In the case of the finance minister, it lasted two years. All that the opposition wants to know and all that Canadians want to know is who are the ministers who are using similar loopholes, how many are there, and when did the Prime Minister know this was going on?
Mr. Speaker, exactly no one in first nation communities believes what the minister just said. Liberals seem to have invented a whole new game. It is called Ethics Bingo. How many Liberals have secret numbered companies they have not told Canadians about? Is it one? Yes, there is one. Is it two? Oh yes, at least two. Is it three? Tell me when I get to the right one and we can all yell bingo together. Enough with the games. Here are the Prime Minister's pre-end zone instructions to his ministers: ...you must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality...and the arrangement of your private affairs should bear the closest public scrutiny. When are they actually going to live up to those words, or are they just meaningless words written on paper?
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-47 on the Arms Trade Treaty has numerous flaws. For instance, it does not impose any firm legal limits on the authority of the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding the approval of arms exports. Furthermore, it does not cover exports to the U.S., which account for 50% of our arms exports.Experts who appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development talked about the serious concerns they have.Will the government agree to amend the bill, or even better, withdraw it and start over?
Time.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told the House yesterday that Liberals trust and honour the work of the Ethics Commissioner. The Prime Minister has been telling us all week to trust the Ethics Commissioner. Now the Prime Minister's Office is telling us she is wrong about the number of Liberal ministers using conflict loopholes. We trust the Ethics Commissioner. Just how many ministers have gamed the spirit of the Conflict of Interest Act?
Mr. Speaker, the answer is nothing. The answer is that I have exposed all of my assets to the Ethics Commissioner.What I can say for the record
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the finance minister said that our deputy leader cannot count, when in fact he is the one who is 100% over his promised deficit levels. He said that others do not know what assets are, when he is the one who just forgot to report his asset, an offshore company in France, to the Ethics Commissioner. Instead of lashing out at others, why does the finance minister not just let go of all the secrets and tell Canadians what he is hiding in all of his holding companies?
Mr. Speaker, to repeat, we have a process in this House that we work with the Ethics Commissioner so that we can expose all of our assets to her and that is in fact what I have done. In terms of disclosure, 100% disclosure is the highest number we can get. That is what I have done. That allowed her to give me recommendations on what we should do to ensure that we do not have conflicts of interest. That is what we expect all 338 members of this House to do. We will continue to respect the Ethics Commissioner. We will continue to work on behalf of Canadians, which is what we were elected to do.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader if she could please tell us what business is happening for the rest of this week and next week before we go back for our Remembrance Day ceremonies.
Mr. Speaker, this morning we started second reading debate on Bill C-63, the budget implementation act. We will continue debate on this legislation this afternoon.Tomorrow we will commence second reading debate of Bill S-5, concerning amendments to the Tobacco Act.On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of next week, we shall continue with debate on the budget bill. Last Thursday I indicated to the House that we would allot four days of debate at second reading, which means we would expect the vote to send the bill to committee to take place on Wednesday evening. I would like to thank opposition House leaders for their co-operation in finding agreement on this timeline.On Thursday, we will resume debate on Bill C-45 on cannabis, and hope to conclude the debate at report stage. We will also be working to pass Bill C-17 on the Yukon before the next constituency week.
Mr. Speaker, if I am wrong, then so too must be the Ethics Commissioner who fined the finance minister for not disclosing his assets. Is that some kind of a compliance fine that she issued him? My last question for the finance minister would be that if he actually if he did disclose his assets for the past few years, will he be asking for his $200 back?
Mr. Speaker, we know on this side of the House that some of the members of the opposition have a tough time counting.What we know is that the number two is less than the number five. What we can say is that there are two: one member who divested all of the assets 18 months ago and another member, me, who has divested his assets most recently. It is quite clear. It is up there on the website to see.We will continue to work with Canadians and not play these games.
Mr. Speaker, the minister is absolutely right. Canadians' trust is not a game. It is to be safeguarded, but right now, the minister is undermining it. For the past three weeks, the Prime Minister has gone on ad nauseam about how he trusts the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Now that the commissioner is saying there are two, three, or maybe four ministers playing the same game as this minister and hiding their assets from Canadians, all of a sudden the Prime Minister is saying she is wrong.My question is simple. Was the Minister of Finance actually in conflict of interest? When did the Prime Minister know about it?
Mr. Speaker, I know the finance minister is getting irritated by the process of accountability around this place, but he did not reveal all of his assets to the Ethics Commissioner; he kept hidden his offshore company in France. That is why she found him in violation of the law and required that he pay a punitive fine. Now he is hiding other assets within different holding companies. He could make these questions go away if he would simply tell Canadians what he is hiding in his vast network of numbered companies and trust funds.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will not be playing games. We will focus on Canadians.For the member for ReginaQu'Appelle, we know that for the 16,090 children who have received the Canada child benefit, an average of $700 per family, it is not a game. It is helping their families. That is what we are working to do, and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I was saddened to read today that the leader of the official opposition has adopted Stephen Harper's approach to the opioid crisis. He is proposing that people with addiction issues should be arrested and incarcerated instead of being provided the help they need to stay alive and work toward a healthy future. The fact that the Conservatives want to reinstate Stephen Harper's failed strategy is irresponsible. People with addiction issues need help, not incarceration.Will the Minister of Health please update this House on her efforts to address the opioid crisis and provide needed support
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the issue of contradictory information given to members regarding the number of cabinet ministers who are currently using a conflict of interest loophole to avoid divesting personal investments or putting them in a blind trust. This contradictory information has been provided by an officer of Parliament, the Ethics Commissioner, and by the Prime Minister. The Ethics Commissioner has said that a number of Liberal cabinet ministers hold controlled assets indirectly, but the Prime Minister contends that only the finance minister does and that he is now in the process of selling shares in Morneau Shepell and setting up a blind trust in the meantime. When pressed to clarify if the Prime Minister was correct in his assertion that the Minister of Finance is the lone minister exploiting a loophole, Ms. Dawson's office confirmed via an email from her spokesperson, Jocelyne Brisebois, which states: The Office still maintains that there are fewer than five ministers who have controlled assets and no we were not wrong about the information provided in our statement to you. We can say fewer than five ministers, including [the finance minister]. That is, she says the commissioner's office was not wrong.However, on Tuesday, the Prime Minister insisted in the Commons that the finance minister is the only one of his 30 ministers who is currently exploiting this loophole. On page 111 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May, it states that, The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.On February 1, 2002, the Speaker then ruled on a matter in regard to the former minister of national defence: The hon. member for PortageLisgar alleged that the Minister of National Defence deliberately misled the House as to when he knew that prisoners taken by Canadian JTF2 troops in Afghanistan had been handed over to the Americans. In support of that allegation, he cited the minister's responses in question period on two successive days... The Speaker considered the matter and found there was a prima facie question of privilege. He said: The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House. The authorities to which Speaker Milliken was referring include but are not limited to the following. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 115, Misleading a Minister or a Member has also been considered a form of obstruction and thus a prima facie breach of privilege.When the Speaker, in 2002, accepted the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House, he stated that Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation. The Speaker then referred to the first edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 67: There are...affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges...the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; [or that] obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties... The Speaker went on to say: On the basis of the arguments presented by hon. members and in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. I therefore invite the hon. member for PortageLisgar to move his motion. On February 17, 2011, the member for ScarboroughGuildwood and other members argued that a minister had made statements in committee that were different from those made in the House or provided to the House in written form. These members argued that the material available showed that contradictory information had been provided. As a result, they argued that this demonstrated that the minister deliberately misled the House and that as such a prima facie case of privilege existed.In a ruling of March 9, 2011, the Speaker then pointed out: ...when asked who inserted the word not in the assessment of the KAIROS funding application, in testimony [before the committee] the minister twice replied that she did not know. In a February 14 statement to the House, while she did not indicate that she knew who inserted the word not, the minister addressed this matter by stating that the not was inserted at her direction. At the very least, it can be said that this has caused confusion. The minister has acknowledged this, and has characterized her own handling of the matter as unfortunate. Yet as is evident from hearing the various interventions that have been made since then, the confusion persists. As the member for ScarboroughRouge River told the House, this has confused me. It has confused Parliament. It has confused us in our exercise of holding the government to account, whether it is the Privy Council, whether it is the minister, whether it is public officials; we cannot do our job when there is that type of confusion. In the case raised on February 17, 2011, the contradictory information involved information provided to a committee and information provided to the House. In this case, we have information provided to the House that is contradictory to information provided by an officer of Parliament.On page 222 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, sixth edition, it states that Committees are regarded as creatures of the House.The House of Commons publication Committees Practical Guide states that committees are central to the operations of the House of Commons and allow for detailed examination of complex matters, which offers an opportunity for members to hear from Canadians and experts on topics of national concern and to have these representations placed on the public record. They provide a means for members to probe into the details of policies and programs, thereby further developing an expertise in certain areas. The Privy Council Office, and some governmental documents, refers to the officers of Parliament as Agents of Parliament, thereby emphasizing that they carry out work for Parliament and are responsible to Parliament, and as a means of distinguishing them from other officers and officials of Parliament. It also emphasizes their independence from the government of the day. These officers of Parliament carry out duties assigned by statute, and report to one or both of the Senate and House of Commons. The individuals appointed to these offices perform work on behalf of Parliament, and report to the chambers, usually through the Speakers. I argue that information flowing from an officer of Parliament holds as much weight as information flowing from a standing committee, and when this information is contradictory and confuses Parliament, as it has, there is a need to direct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to look at this in the guise of a breach of privilege. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner issued a statement today that said: The Globe and Mail reported this morning that the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is at odds with the Prime Minister over how many cabinet ministers currently hold controlled assets indirectly. This is, in fact, not the case. The Office did not wish to give an exact number when asked how many cabinet ministers indirectly hold controlled assets. The Office indicated fewer than five, giving a general sense of an upper limit to the number, meaning it could be one, two, three or four. This does not clarify anything, and it certainly confuses the issues further. I ask that you find a prima facie question of privilege here. I am prepared to move the proper motion to allow the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to get to the bottom of this matter.If you have any doubts, Mr. Speaker, I refer you to a ruling given on March 21, 1978, at page 3,975 of Debates, which is also referred to in Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, at page 227, where Speaker Jerome quoted a British procedure committee report of 1967, which states in part: ...the Speaker should ask himself [I am sure he meant to say himself or herself], when he has to decide whether to grant precedence over other public business to a motion which a Member who has complained of some act or conduct as constituting a breach of privilege desires to move, should be notdo I consider that, assuming that the facts are as stated, the act or conduct constitutes a breach of privilege, but could it reasonably be held to be a breach of privilege, or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should, in my view, leave it to the House. Mr. Speaker, I submit this matter to your wise judgment.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I spoke with a member of the opposition. He told me that it was not personal, that what happens here in the House is just a game. For us, it is not a game. It is really important to Canadians. We know that for the 300,000 children lifted out of poverty, it is intensely personal. We will continue to work with Canadians to improve the Canada's situation. That is our goal.
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?
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the Liberals are centralists. They centralized decision-making on regional economic development in Toronto, and they centralized political decision-making on issues such as the elimination of the political lieutenant for Quebec in Ottawa. They are now preparing to centralize the arts by transferring a wide range of artifacts from Quebec City, the bastion of the Canadian francophonie, to the nation's capital.Will the member for Québec promise us that he will fight in cabinet to reverse this decision?
Mr. Speaker, our position on the issue has always been clear. We will always promote and protect rights and freedoms because we believe in the importance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not for the state to say what a person can or cannot wear.We are currently examining the application of the law. I thank my colleagues for their support on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, that minister hid an offshore company in France, and then he hid $20 million of Morneau Shepell shares from Canadians. Now that Canadians know he held those shares, because of investigative journalism and not because of his transparency, he has admitted that it was not the right thing to do, has sold those shares, and is now saying he will give back the ill-gotten gains. We need to know what other inappropriate investments the minister might be hiding in his holding companies. Why does he not tell us what is in those companies?
Mr. Speaker, our strategy is to continue improving the lives of Canadian families and the middle class across the country. That is what matters. That is why we introduced the Canada child benefit, which makes life better for 300,000 children. That is why we improved the working income tax benefit for Canadians who are seriously struggling. We will continue to work for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, Parks Canada primarily exhibits the objects under its care at Parks Canada-administered national parks and national historic sites in every province and territory.In 2012, Parks Canada decided to build a purpose-built collection facility to ensure the sustainable care and management of the collection not currently on display throughout Canada. There are approximately 31 million artifacts under Parks Canada's care, and 60% of the collection is under threat due to inappropriate environmental storage conditions and lack of appropriate security.We are working to ensure the protection and preservation of the collection and its display throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, to join the treaty, we would first have to respect it.Experts have testified to the serious problems in the bill to implement the Arms Trade Treaty. Two detailed reports have been issued that insist that the government's Bill C-47 does not reflect either the spirit or the letter of the treaty. Nothing in the bill would prevent future arms deals with human rights abusers.I ask the minister again. Will the government amend the bill or withdraw it and start over?
Mr. Speaker, marijuana growers in my riding of KootenayColumbia have formed a co-op to advance their rights. They are concerned that the government will not license growers who farm outdoors and that licensing will go only to large corporate indoor growers. Indeed, Liberals on the health committee already voted down an NDP motion to allow provinces to develop production regimes that would support local economies.As the government moves to legalize the recreational use of cannabis, will it stand with and support economically important, small-scale outdoor farmers across Canada and ensure that they have a future, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, Canada's big city mayors have sounded the alarm. One in five renters spend more than half their income on housing, and 1.5 million families cannot find affordable housing.In Montreal, 25,000 families are on the waiting list for social housing, and in Toronto, 58,000 community housing units are in need of immediate repair.As the minister prepares to announce the details of his housing strategy, will he commit to investing the funding necessary to maintain and expand social housing stock?
Mr. Speaker, what I can say to the member opposite is: wrong again.What happened here is that I disclosed all of my assets, and in fact there was an administrative error that we satisfied the commissioner with the $200 fine I paid. We are trying to work to help Canadians and not play the games that the members opposite are trying to play, because we know that was what we were elected to do. For all of those Canadians who looked at what we announced last week, the level of growth our country is seeing, and the improvements we are going to make in the Canada child benefit and the working income tax benefit, we are going to tell them that we are working for them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring to your attention a grave and disturbing matter that occurred yesterday while riding the House of Commons bus. I stand with a very heavy heart for this point of order because it was exactly for that reason I went into politics, to be a voice for the most vulnerable and fight for the rights of women, especially immigrant women, and bring their voice to Ottawa to fight against racism, agism, and sexism.Now I will state the facts. I was sitting on an outside seat when the member for SpadinaFort York entered the bus. The member stopped and hovered over me. He began to wave his hand in my face, chastised and intimidated me for something I said in the House earlier in the day. Yesterday, during question period, the Prime Minister was giving one of his non-answers to a question about the government transferring up to half a billion dollars into the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, while at the same time the PBO reported the government was behind on infrastructure spending within Canada. With great emotion and pride, I said Canada is our home. For some reason, the member took issue with my statement and began to intimidate me for raising it, making suggestions to alternative statements I could have made. I did not have time to give you the proper notice of a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, but I reserve the right to do so. I do so for the following reasons. Responding to threats was among the first matters of parliamentary privilege dealt with in Canada. Page 198 of the second edition of Joseph Maginot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada tells us of an incident in 1758 where the Nova Scotia House of Assembly proceeded against someone who made threats against a member. In a ruling on September 19, 1973, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, at page 6709 of the Debates, stated that he had: no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats and attempts at intimidation. Mr. Speaker Bosley, on May 16, 1986, at page 13362 of Debates, ruled that the threat or attempt to intimidate could not be hypothetical, but that it must be real or have occurred. I have a whole bus of passengers who witnessed this whole incident.On March 24, 1994, at page 2705 of Debates, Mr. Speaker Parent said: Threats of blackmail or intimidation of a member of Parliament should never be taken lightly. When such occurs, the very essence of free speech is undermined. Without the guarantee of freedom of speech, no member of Parliament can do his duty as expected. This attempt to intimidate me was directly linked to what I said in the House earlier in the day, and that, Mr. Speaker, should be grounds enough to warrant a favourable ruling for a question of privilege.Hiding behind a prime minister who claims to be a feminist does not give the member the right to intimidate another member of the same House of another party. Female members of all three parties were on the bus. They witnessed everything he did and how he intimidated me. Therefore, I reserve the right for a question of privilege with proper notice.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the opposition was levelling baseless accusations. Today, the Liberals are accusing the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner of providing false information about their own minister's situation. I wonder who are the ones making baseless accusations in the House.My question is simple: now that we know that his finance minister is in a direct conflict of interest, I would like to know why the Prime Minister misled Parliament and all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, we have full confidence in the Ethics Commissioner. We will review what the member has brought forward to the House and report back in due course.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is blaming everybody but the finance minister or himself for the scandal that is before us. The Prime Minister is all but directly blaming the Ethics Commissioner, blaming the Ethics Commissioner for the finance minister's several inexcusable lapses of judgment and for the Prime Minister's own willingness to look the other way.Why is the Prime Minister misleading Parliament about other ministers' actions? Is the Prime Minister's Office calling the Ethics Commissioner a liar?
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the indulgence. I only offer a small commentary, in addition to what we have heard.My friend has pointed out that the Prime Minister made a statement in the House that there was only one of his ministers, the Minister of Finance who was using this ethical loophole, this numbered company. We have to take members at their word that, when they speak in the House, that word is speaking the truth.We then had the unfortunate situation in which the Ethics Commissioner, when contacted by the media to clarify if the Prime Minister was in fact correct that there was only one of his ministers who had broken his own promise that things would be divulged, had to then essentially correct the Prime Minister saying that her earlier statement was still true.Now the reasons she has as Ethics Commissioner to keep the number somewhat vague, as less than five but more than one, is something that is at her discretion. That is not for us to judge.The concern we have not only is the potential case in which the Prime Minister may have misled the House of Commons on an important issue facing Canadians, but it is also thatafter so many weeks upon weeks of Liberal ministers, including the Prime Minister and the finance minister, saying how much faith they had in the Ethics Commissionerin effect they are using Parliament and parliamentary privilege to undermine the Ethics Commissioner's own statements to the Canadian public.Canadians are wondering what is going on within the Liberal cabinet. This is important in terms of our being able to do our jobs as opposition members on behalf of Canadians. Our job, primarily, is to hold the government to account, to find out what the government is and is not doing, and to find out whether it is keeping good faith with Canadians.I will remind the Speaker and all members that, in both their mandate letters and in the declaration from the Prime Minister, the instruction was crystal clear: they were not to simply follow the letter of the law, of the Conflict of Interest Act, but also the spirit of the law, and second, they were to make available all of their personal assets and holdings to the fullest public scrutiny.That is what the Prime Minister of this country promised us. That is what the Prime Minister later went on to contradict, both in word and deed.I look forward to your ruling on this, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to finally settling this matter, which can only be done, by the way, by the Prime Minister, his finance minister, and the other ministers in his cabinet who have been holding secret accounts in numbered companies, withholding that information from Canadians, which has put them in an obvious case of conflict of interest, from my perspective and that of others.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Youth brags about working to give young people better opportunities, but according to Generation Squeeze, government spending on youth programming is down $19 billion compared with 40 years ago.This is mystifying, given that youth today are worse off than people their age were 40 years ago, despite being more likely to have post-secondary degrees. They certainly have no shortage of needs, including funding for post-secondary studies, access to affordable housing, help to cope with growing food insecurity, and a national daycare system, to name but a few.When will the Minister of Youth finally put his money where his mouth is and support youth?
Mr. Speaker, to call that answer vague would be an understatement, and I am nowhere near convinced. If the government does not provide health and security services to the people, it should hand that tax revenue over to the provinces, which do. On another matter, today the media reported that Quebec's religious neutrality law could be challenged as early as tomorrow. Quebec has the right to make its own decisions about rules governing the relationship between the state and its people. That is a fundamental right.Will the government respect Quebec's jurisdiction, as stated in the motion we adopted, and will it promise not to pay for any legal challenge to Quebec's religious neutrality law?
Mr. Speaker, there is no issue on which I stand with a prouder sense of commitment and accomplishment than on the issue of housing. Not only in the first budget did we double the amount of money going to provinces and our partners in the municipalities, but we have now committed to a 10-year program to create the first ever national strategy for housing. This is going to be a game changer. We have consulted widely with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We have listened to their needs about repairs, about construction, and about subsidies. We will be delivering the best housing policy our country has ever seen. I can only hope the party opposite does not vote against it once again.
Mr. Speaker, are these ethical standards if the Liberals cannot even enforce the bare minimum they should be following?The Prime Minister is showing his contempt for the House, which is calling for explanations for his ethical lapses and those of his government.However, the facts are clear. This Prime Minister is still under investigation for his trip to the Aga Khan's private island. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has identified one, two, three, four minsters who are using the loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act.The commissioner is also concerned about the role the minister played in Bill C-27. This government said that it would live up to the highest ethical standards.Why then can the government not even enforce the bare minimum?
Mr. Speaker, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner clearly said that many ministers are using the same loophole that the finance minister used to hide his assets. However, the Prime Minister assured us that the finance minister was the only one to do so.The question is simple: how many other cabinet ministers are using the same loophole and who are they?
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the President of the Treasury Board will have a lot more respect for the Information Commissioner. She said yesterday that the access to information reforms are smoke and mirrors from the Liberal government; while it is promising transparency, these reforms actually turn back the clock on the rights of citizens. It was the Information Commissioner who said that.Is the Liberal Party preparing other sponsorship scandals that it wants to keep under wraps?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise my point of order at this point, before I go on with the Thursday question.I rise on a point of order regarding comments just made during question period. The Minister of Finance said directly that our deputy leader did not know how to count. Our deputy leader has been a member of Parliament here for nine years. She has a law degree from Osgoode Hall Law School. She has been a CEO. She clearly knows how to count, and so much more. These are some of the reasons, many times, women do not want to get involved in the political process. When maybe things are tough, insults like thatBimbo, You don't know how to count, You're not smart, You're a puppetare hurled at women politicians and at women in general. I hope that is not what the Minister of Finance was trying to do, but I would like to give him the opportunity to apologize to our very qualified, very smart, and very capable deputy House leader.
Mr. Speaker, one thing we can all agree on is that the Minister of Finance needs help in one thing in counting: he better count on getting some better communications advice.The Prime Minister said this week: ...I am not trying to blame the Ethics Commissioner, I am trying to trust the Ethics Commissioner. That is what opposition members need to do. That is exactly what we are doing as well. After weeks of misleading and memory lapses, the Government of Canada has shown that it does not trust the Ethics Commissioner, but I think Canadians actually do.The minister put himself in a direct conflict, and he broke the law when he failed to disclose
Mr. Speaker, Canada's story is the story of immigration. Those who choose Canada bring with them their unique culture, skills, and an entrepreneurial spirit that strengthens our economy. My family immigrated to Canada 18 years ago to build a better life for our son. We sacrificed, we worked hard, and now I sit in the House as the member for Scarborough Centre. Could the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship please update the House on how our government's historic immigration levels plan will continue the tradition of welcoming newcomers to Canada?
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was speaking to the member for Milton. I want to be clear that I was not questioning her numeracy skills. I have the highest respect for the member for Milton, who I know has had a positive business career. What I am questioning and what I would question for the member for Carleton is the numbers that he is actually focusing on. In his case, the numbers he should focus on are the more than 16,000 children in his riding who are getting the Canada child benefit, on average $520 per family. This is what we are doing for Canadians. We are making families better off so that they can actually move forward, to have confidence
Mr. Speaker, we are keeping our election promise to join the Arms Trade Treaty. Regulating the illicit trade in weapons is essential for the protection of human rights.Bill C-47 would put into regulation the criteria that must be considered before authorizing export permits. As with all regulations, all Canadians will be able to provide input into developing these criteria.
Mr. Speaker, today on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the Hanjin Seattle cargo ship debris spill in my riding, I tabled a motion to address coastal debris. Still, community groups are leading cleanup efforts without any help from the current government. Government officials have indicated that there is a near-complete legislative and regulatory void for coastal debris cleanup, and that there is no dedicated fund.The Liberals love talking about their world-class oceans protection plan, but nothing is happening. I have a simple question. Will the minister create a permanent dedicated annual fund for coastal debris cleanup?
Mr. Speaker, we made a promise to Canadians that we will fix the immigration system to grow our economy and reunite families and eliminate the backlogs that were left behind by the Conservatives. Our multi-year immigration plan is the most ambitious yet. It supports GDP growth, attracts more investment into Canada, creates additional jobs for Canadians, and boosts innovation. We on this side of the House understand that immigration, together with a welcoming society, is what has made Canada
Mr. Speaker, the only way to know if he is making Canadians better off instead of just making himself better off is just to reveal what investments he has held over the last two years in his vast network of holding companies and trust funds. We just recently found out that the minister was taking $65,000 a month in dividends from a company that he simultaneously regulated. He introduced a bill that would help that company.The only way to put all of this to bed and put an end to these questions for the minister is for him to come clean and tell us what he is hiding in those
Mr. Speaker, we are the first government in 30 years to want to update the Access to Information Act, and we will work with the Information Commissioner to do so.In fact, let us be very clear. For the first time in history, our government is giving the commissioner order-making power. For the first time in history, we are actually applying the Access to Information Act to ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office. The Conservatives did nothing to modernize the act in 10 years. We are getting it done.
Mr. Speaker, we are proud to be the first government in more than 30 years to modernize the Access to Information Act. I want to be very clear on a specific issue the hon. member raised in regard to indigenous peoples.I will be very clear that we will support an amendment that would require departments to seek approval from the Information Commissioner before refusing a request. This would ensure that broad requests would not be refused simply because they were broadly applied in their descriptions. We want to ensure that this modernization of access to information strengthens the regime, and we are open to narrowing the application of this clause,
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said from the start, no relationship is more important to our government than our relationship with indigenous peoples. That is why the Prime Minister announced the dismantling of the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs. As we all know, far too many indigenous children end up in the child welfare system in Canada. We know the system is broken, and we know the system must be fixed. Could the Minister of Indigenous Services please update the House as to what is being done to protect the health and safety of indigenous children?
Mr. Speaker, I can say that we are very proud of our historic investments in young Canadians across the country.First, we boosted the Canada summer jobs program by an unprecedented $300 million. Next, we made a historic investment in education by increasing funding for student grants by 50%. Recently, we invested $400 million to create co-op placements for young Canadians.We fully understand that an investment in youth is an investment in our country's future, and that is exactly what we will keep doing.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Saint BonifaceSaint Vital for his question and for his leadership of the indigenous caucus.I believe that all members of this House are disturbed by the disproportionate rates of indigenous children in the child welfare system, over 50% by the most recent census. We have some of the highest rates of indigenous child apprehension in the world. That is one of the reasons I have called an emergency meeting, along with indigenous leaders. First nations, Inuit, and Métis leaders have asked for provinces and territories to come together with child welfare experts and advocates. We will find solutions, and we will work together to promote prevention and
Mr. Speaker, to repeat, working with the Ethics Commissioner is the approach we have in this House. It is to respect the officer of Parliament who has that duty. That is what we will continue to do. It allows us to do the work we have been asked to do on behalf of Canadians. We will not get distracted by the games from the other side. We will not get distracted by the personal attacks. We will continue to be focused on Canadians. That focus is working. Canadians are in a much better situation two years later than they were when we came into office, so we will continue to do that good work on behalf of them.
Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister can help us out. Am I getting warmer or colder? It is more than one, but fewer than five. Is it four? Is it three? Is it two? Why can this minister not just answer simple questions?Who are the other ministers and how many are there?
Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that, in fact, my state of mind is not irritated but actually encouraged with the economy that we are seeing for Canadians. We have seen, over two years, a very positive change in our economy. We have seen, in two years, a very positive change for middle-class Canadians and families across our country. That is what we are here to do, so we will continue to do the good work and not play the games that the other party is playing.
Mr. Speaker, displacing artifacts like that and bringing them here is an outrage.Bill C-63 revealed that the government wants to start taxing pot. That is another way of stirring up trouble in Quebec and lining their own pockets. We know that Quebec, not Ottawa, will have to pick up the tab for costs related to health and security. Will the government promise to leave that money to Quebec, or will it once again try to line its own pockets without even doing a thing?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say for the record that I hold the Ethics Commissioner in the highest regard. We believe that it is important that we have an officer of Parliament who helps all of us here in the House to ensure that we can expose our personal assets and do it in a way that allows us to take recommendations on how we can assure that we do not have conflicts of interest. That is our continuing approach.I will continue to work with her, as I have thus far. As I have said to this House, I have gone farther than her recommendations to make absolutely sure that in my position, there cannot be even a perception of conflict.
Mr. Speaker, what I will continue to do with Canadians is listen to their issues, make sure that we are addressing them, and move forward not only to ensure that we have a high level of economic growth in the country but that Canadians see the benefits of that growth for themselves and their families. That is what we have been doing for the last couple of years. While the members of the official opposition have been playing games, we have actually been trying to work for Canadians.The good news is, it is working, with a higher level of economic growth than we have seen in a decade and a lower level of unemployment than we have seen in a decade. We have over 450,000 more Canadians working. Jobs matter.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is, and always will be, associated with the sponsorship scandal.Canadians believed that the Liberals got the message, but they did not get it at all. The Liberal government is introducing a bill on access to information that would prevent the excellent work of journalists, people like Daniel Leblanc and others, from revealing things like the sponsorship scandal. We are not the ones saying so. Yesterday, the Information Commissioner said: ...I went back to the request...that uncovered the sponsorship scandal and that request would not meet their new requirement under [this bill]. Why does the Liberal Party want to hide other sponsorship scandals?
Mr. Speaker, after more than 30 years, we are the first government to modernize the Access to Information Act, and we are applying it to ministers' offices through proactive disclosure. I understand why the NDP does not like proactive disclosure. When we were in opposition and the Prime Minister was the leader of the Liberals in opposition, he led the charge on proactive disclosure of MPs' expenses. The Conservatives signed on to it quite quickly, but the NDP members were dragged kicking and screaming to disclose their expenses to the Canadian public. They did not like proactive disclosure then, and they do not like it today.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member for Carleton does not actually know what an asset is, but all my assets were exposed to the Ethics Commissioner. What I can say is that we continue to work on behalf of Canadians, and we will continue to do so.For the member opposite, the member for Carleton, what I can say is for the more than 16,000 children in his riding who are getting the Canada child benefit, an average of $430 per family, we are proud that we are able to help those families.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said to this House, I believe it is important that we work with the Ethics Commissioner. That is important. That is, in fact, exactly what I did. By exposing all of my assets, 100% of my assets, to the Ethics Commissioner when we came into office, I was able to get recommendations from her on how to best move forward to avoid conflicts of interest, as the other members of our government have done. We know that is the way we get to do the important work for Canadians, not to play games or go for personal attacks that really do not advance the cause of any Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, thinking about counting for the member for Milton, there are 25,630 children in her riding whose families are getting on average $520 more through the Canada child benefit. Those are the numbers that we know matter to Canadians.With respect to working with the Ethics Commissioner, we will continue to do so because we know that is the right way for us to fully allow us to do our work, exposing all of our assets, which all of us have done, including me, working with her and taking her recommendations to make sure we can get on with the important work we are doing for the people of Milton.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to assure members of this House and all Canadians that we are delivering on our campaign commitment to join the Arms Trade Treaty. Tackling the illicit trade in weapons is essential for the protection of people and of human rights. Bill C-47 would put into regulations the criteria that must be considered before authorizing export permits. As with all regulations, all Canadians will be able to provide input into developing these criteria.
Mr. Speaker, yes, I can say that the member opposite is wrong when he says that I did not disclose all of my assets. I worked with the Ethics Commissioner, as all of us on this side are committed to doing. We will continue to do so.What I can also say is that Canadians were right when they decided to elect our government, because they knew that we would focus on them, and not focus on playing games that are not to their advantage or their families' advantage. Happily for them, our country is in a much better situation with higher growth and a better situation for their families across this country.
Mr. Speaker, our government has been working very closely with our provincial and territorial partners. There have been ongoing discussions with the provinces and territories about the appropriate taxation and price regimens to be put in place. That is part of an ongoing and important discussion. That discussion has been characterized by close co-operation and collaboration between all parties.
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work with the Ethics Commissioner. We believe that is important. It is important also to focus on how Canadian families are feeling right now. They are seeing the highest growth rate they have seen in a decade. They are seeing more than 450,000 new jobs created over the last couple of years. They are seeing the lowest rate of unemployment that they have seen, again, in a decade. This is a good situation for Canadians. We know there is much more to do. That is why we said we were going to index the Canada child benefit two years in advance. That is why we are putting in place an increase in the working income tax benefit. These are important things to help our country move forward.
Mr. Speaker, we have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to bringing equity for children in this country. As it relates to child and family services and the gaps that exist there, we recognize that we are facing a national crisis in terms of the way indigenous children are overrepresented in the child welfare system.As of this week, I have called for an emergency meeting of all appropriate partners. The provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, first nations, Inuit, and Métis will get together and we will solve this crisis together.
Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the Conservatives promised to reform the Access to Information Act. They did nothing for 10 years. Their government was the first in the Commonwealth to be found in contempt of Parliament. We will take no lessons from the most secretive government of all time.
Mr. Speaker, again, we have the highest respect for the Ethics Commissioner and will continue to work with her to make sure that her work, which is so important, can continue to be done in a respectful way. That is our approach. We know that the approach to disclosing all of our assets to her is important. Taking her recommendations, which we have done, is important. That will allow us to continue to help all Canadian constituents across the country, including those who live in constituencies of members across the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that members opposite trust the Ethics Commissioner, as we do. We have worked with the Ethics Commissioner to make sure that we can ensure all of our situations are fully exposed and that she can provide recommendations for us on how we can ensure we do not have conflicts of interest. I can say from my standpoint that was an important exercise to ensure I do not have conflicts of interest.We will continue to do that. That allows us to get to the work we want to do on behalf of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right, we are very proud of our oceans protection plan, which now has approached its first-year anniversary and we have announced over 50 measures. With respect to ships that lose cargo, it is very clear that they are responsible for the cleaning. That is the situation with the Hanjin Seattle that my colleague is referring to.
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is the hon. member for Toronto Centre, but it is not honourable to suggest that our deputy leader cannot count. It is not honourable to suggest that our finance critic is obtuse. It is not honourable for the member to deny his own mistakes and his own omissions. When will the hon. member do the right thing and apologize to Canadians for his mistakes?
Mr. Speaker, as we have said, working with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is very important. That is what we have done. We have a lot of respect for her. Our government believes that this is the best way to ensure we are not in conflict of interest. We will continue to follow this approach because that is how we get to do the important work for Canadians. This really is not a game. It is very important to families across the country.
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. We know that is very important. We believe that the best way to ensure that we are not in a conflict of interest is by working with her. That way, we can do the work that is important for Canadians. That is our approach. We now have the highest rate of economic growth and the lowest rate of unemployment in a decade. That is good for Canada and Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that our government is committed to living up to the highest standards. That is why we are working with the Ethics Commissioner to make sure that in all of our situations, she understands all of our assets. That is why we are taking her recommendations, as we all have, in order to move forward and ensure that none of us has conflicts of interest. We know that is the way we get to do the work we were hired to do by Canadians, which is working to continue to grow our economy and making sure that we have a fair situation where people get the benefits of that growth. That is what Canadians are seeing. That is what we will keep doing.
Mr. Speaker, our government has introduced a comprehensive framework for the strict regulation of the production, distribution, and consumption of cannabis. We have been working collaboratively with our provincial and territorial partners. Health Canada administers a very effective system of licensing for those who meet the requirements of that regulation to ensure that what will be consumed by Canadians is of known potency and purity. Those rules are important for the health and safety of all Canadians, and we will continue to promote them.
Most positive speeches
Mr. Speaker, our government has introduced a comprehensive framework for the strict regulation of the production, distribution, and consumption of cannabis. We have been working collaboratively with our provincial and territorial partners. Health Canada administers a very effective system of licensing for those who meet the requirements of that regulation to ensure that what will be consumed by Canadians is of known potency and purity. Those rules are important for the health and safety of all Canadians, and we will continue to promote them.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that our government is committed to living up to the highest standards. That is why we are working with the Ethics Commissioner to make sure that in all of our situations, she understands all of our assets. That is why we are taking her recommendations, as we all have, in order to move forward and ensure that none of us has conflicts of interest. We know that is the way we get to do the work we were hired to do by Canadians, which is working to continue to grow our economy and making sure that we have a fair situation where people get the benefits of that growth. That is what Canadians are seeing. That is what we will keep doing.
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. We know that is very important. We believe that the best way to ensure that we are not in a conflict of interest is by working with her. That way, we can do the work that is important for Canadians. That is our approach. We now have the highest rate of economic growth and the lowest rate of unemployment in a decade. That is good for Canada and Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, as we have said, working with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is very important. That is what we have done. We have a lot of respect for her. Our government believes that this is the best way to ensure we are not in conflict of interest. We will continue to follow this approach because that is how we get to do the important work for Canadians. This really is not a game. It is very important to families across the country.
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is the hon. member for Toronto Centre, but it is not honourable to suggest that our deputy leader cannot count. It is not honourable to suggest that our finance critic is obtuse. It is not honourable for the member to deny his own mistakes and his own omissions. When will the hon. member do the right thing and apologize to Canadians for his mistakes?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right, we are very proud of our oceans protection plan, which now has approached its first-year anniversary and we have announced over 50 measures. With respect to ships that lose cargo, it is very clear that they are responsible for the cleaning. That is the situation with the Hanjin Seattle that my colleague is referring to.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that members opposite trust the Ethics Commissioner, as we do. We have worked with the Ethics Commissioner to make sure that we can ensure all of our situations are fully exposed and that she can provide recommendations for us on how we can ensure we do not have conflicts of interest. I can say from my standpoint that was an important exercise to ensure I do not have conflicts of interest.We will continue to do that. That allows us to get to the work we want to do on behalf of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, again, we have the highest respect for the Ethics Commissioner and will continue to work with her to make sure that her work, which is so important, can continue to be done in a respectful way. That is our approach. We know that the approach to disclosing all of our assets to her is important. Taking her recommendations, which we have done, is important. That will allow us to continue to help all Canadian constituents across the country, including those who live in constituencies of members across the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, we have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to bringing equity for children in this country. As it relates to child and family services and the gaps that exist there, we recognize that we are facing a national crisis in terms of the way indigenous children are overrepresented in the child welfare system.As of this week, I have called for an emergency meeting of all appropriate partners. The provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, first nations, Inuit, and Métis will get together and we will solve this crisis together.
Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the Conservatives promised to reform the Access to Information Act. They did nothing for 10 years. Their government was the first in the Commonwealth to be found in contempt of Parliament. We will take no lessons from the most secretive government of all time.
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work with the Ethics Commissioner. We believe that is important. It is important also to focus on how Canadian families are feeling right now. They are seeing the highest growth rate they have seen in a decade. They are seeing more than 450,000 new jobs created over the last couple of years. They are seeing the lowest rate of unemployment that they have seen, again, in a decade. This is a good situation for Canadians. We know there is much more to do. That is why we said we were going to index the Canada child benefit two years in advance. That is why we are putting in place an increase in the working income tax benefit. These are important things to help our country move forward.
Mr. Speaker, our government has been working very closely with our provincial and territorial partners. There have been ongoing discussions with the provinces and territories about the appropriate taxation and price regimens to be put in place. That is part of an ongoing and important discussion. That discussion has been characterized by close co-operation and collaboration between all parties.
Mr. Speaker, yes, I can say that the member opposite is wrong when he says that I did not disclose all of my assets. I worked with the Ethics Commissioner, as all of us on this side are committed to doing. We will continue to do so.What I can also say is that Canadians were right when they decided to elect our government, because they knew that we would focus on them, and not focus on playing games that are not to their advantage or their families' advantage. Happily for them, our country is in a much better situation with higher growth and a better situation for their families across this country.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to assure members of this House and all Canadians that we are delivering on our campaign commitment to join the Arms Trade Treaty. Tackling the illicit trade in weapons is essential for the protection of people and of human rights. Bill C-47 would put into regulations the criteria that must be considered before authorizing export permits. As with all regulations, all Canadians will be able to provide input into developing these criteria.
Mr. Speaker, thinking about counting for the member for Milton, there are 25,630 children in her riding whose families are getting on average $520 more through the Canada child benefit. Those are the numbers that we know matter to Canadians.With respect to working with the Ethics Commissioner, we will continue to do so because we know that is the right way for us to fully allow us to do our work, exposing all of our assets, which all of us have done, including me, working with her and taking her recommendations to make sure we can get on with the important work we are doing for the people of Milton.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said to this House, I believe it is important that we work with the Ethics Commissioner. That is important. That is, in fact, exactly what I did. By exposing all of my assets, 100% of my assets, to the Ethics Commissioner when we came into office, I was able to get recommendations from her on how to best move forward to avoid conflicts of interest, as the other members of our government have done. We know that is the way we get to do the important work for Canadians, not to play games or go for personal attacks that really do not advance the cause of any Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member for Carleton does not actually know what an asset is, but all my assets were exposed to the Ethics Commissioner. What I can say is that we continue to work on behalf of Canadians, and we will continue to do so.For the member opposite, the member for Carleton, what I can say is for the more than 16,000 children in his riding who are getting the Canada child benefit, an average of $430 per family, we are proud that we are able to help those families.
Mr. Speaker, after more than 30 years, we are the first government to modernize the Access to Information Act, and we are applying it to ministers' offices through proactive disclosure. I understand why the NDP does not like proactive disclosure. When we were in opposition and the Prime Minister was the leader of the Liberals in opposition, he led the charge on proactive disclosure of MPs' expenses. The Conservatives signed on to it quite quickly, but the NDP members were dragged kicking and screaming to disclose their expenses to the Canadian public. They did not like proactive disclosure then, and they do not like it today.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is, and always will be, associated with the sponsorship scandal.Canadians believed that the Liberals got the message, but they did not get it at all. The Liberal government is introducing a bill on access to information that would prevent the excellent work of journalists, people like Daniel Leblanc and others, from revealing things like the sponsorship scandal. We are not the ones saying so. Yesterday, the Information Commissioner said: ...I went back to the request...that uncovered the sponsorship scandal and that request would not meet their new requirement under [this bill]. Why does the Liberal Party want to hide other sponsorship scandals?
Mr. Speaker, what I will continue to do with Canadians is listen to their issues, make sure that we are addressing them, and move forward not only to ensure that we have a high level of economic growth in the country but that Canadians see the benefits of that growth for themselves and their families. That is what we have been doing for the last couple of years. While the members of the official opposition have been playing games, we have actually been trying to work for Canadians.The good news is, it is working, with a higher level of economic growth than we have seen in a decade and a lower level of unemployment than we have seen in a decade. We have over 450,000 more Canadians working. Jobs matter.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say for the record that I hold the Ethics Commissioner in the highest regard. We believe that it is important that we have an officer of Parliament who helps all of us here in the House to ensure that we can expose our personal assets and do it in a way that allows us to take recommendations on how we can assure that we do not have conflicts of interest. That is our continuing approach.I will continue to work with her, as I have thus far. As I have said to this House, I have gone farther than her recommendations to make absolutely sure that in my position, there cannot be even a perception of conflict.
Mr. Speaker, displacing artifacts like that and bringing them here is an outrage.Bill C-63 revealed that the government wants to start taxing pot. That is another way of stirring up trouble in Quebec and lining their own pockets. We know that Quebec, not Ottawa, will have to pick up the tab for costs related to health and security. Will the government promise to leave that money to Quebec, or will it once again try to line its own pockets without even doing a thing?
Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that, in fact, my state of mind is not irritated but actually encouraged with the economy that we are seeing for Canadians. We have seen, over two years, a very positive change in our economy. We have seen, in two years, a very positive change for middle-class Canadians and families across our country. That is what we are here to do, so we will continue to do the good work and not play the games that the other party is playing.
Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister can help us out. Am I getting warmer or colder? It is more than one, but fewer than five. Is it four? Is it three? Is it two? Why can this minister not just answer simple questions?Who are the other ministers and how many are there?
Mr. Speaker, to repeat, working with the Ethics Commissioner is the approach we have in this House. It is to respect the officer of Parliament who has that duty. That is what we will continue to do. It allows us to do the work we have been asked to do on behalf of Canadians. We will not get distracted by the games from the other side. We will not get distracted by the personal attacks. We will continue to be focused on Canadians. That focus is working. Canadians are in a much better situation two years later than they were when we came into office, so we will continue to do that good work on behalf of them.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Saint BonifaceSaint Vital for his question and for his leadership of the indigenous caucus.I believe that all members of this House are disturbed by the disproportionate rates of indigenous children in the child welfare system, over 50% by the most recent census. We have some of the highest rates of indigenous child apprehension in the world. That is one of the reasons I have called an emergency meeting, along with indigenous leaders. First nations, Inuit, and Métis leaders have asked for provinces and territories to come together with child welfare experts and advocates. We will find solutions, and we will work together to promote prevention and
Mr. Speaker, I can say that we are very proud of our historic investments in young Canadians across the country.First, we boosted the Canada summer jobs program by an unprecedented $300 million. Next, we made a historic investment in education by increasing funding for student grants by 50%. Recently, we invested $400 million to create co-op placements for young Canadians.We fully understand that an investment in youth is an investment in our country's future, and that is exactly what we will keep doing.
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said from the start, no relationship is more important to our government than our relationship with indigenous peoples. That is why the Prime Minister announced the dismantling of the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs. As we all know, far too many indigenous children end up in the child welfare system in Canada. We know the system is broken, and we know the system must be fixed. Could the Minister of Indigenous Services please update the House as to what is being done to protect the health and safety of indigenous children?
Mr. Speaker, we are proud to be the first government in more than 30 years to modernize the Access to Information Act. I want to be very clear on a specific issue the hon. member raised in regard to indigenous peoples.I will be very clear that we will support an amendment that would require departments to seek approval from the Information Commissioner before refusing a request. This would ensure that broad requests would not be refused simply because they were broadly applied in their descriptions. We want to ensure that this modernization of access to information strengthens the regime, and we are open to narrowing the application of this clause,
Mr. Speaker, we are the first government in 30 years to want to update the Access to Information Act, and we will work with the Information Commissioner to do so.In fact, let us be very clear. For the first time in history, our government is giving the commissioner order-making power. For the first time in history, we are actually applying the Access to Information Act to ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office. The Conservatives did nothing to modernize the act in 10 years. We are getting it done.
Mr. Speaker, the only way to know if he is making Canadians better off instead of just making himself better off is just to reveal what investments he has held over the last two years in his vast network of holding companies and trust funds. We just recently found out that the minister was taking $65,000 a month in dividends from a company that he simultaneously regulated. He introduced a bill that would help that company.The only way to put all of this to bed and put an end to these questions for the minister is for him to come clean and tell us what he is hiding in those
Mr. Speaker, we made a promise to Canadians that we will fix the immigration system to grow our economy and reunite families and eliminate the backlogs that were left behind by the Conservatives. Our multi-year immigration plan is the most ambitious yet. It supports GDP growth, attracts more investment into Canada, creates additional jobs for Canadians, and boosts innovation. We on this side of the House understand that immigration, together with a welcoming society, is what has made Canada
Mr. Speaker, we are keeping our election promise to join the Arms Trade Treaty. Regulating the illicit trade in weapons is essential for the protection of human rights.Bill C-47 would put into regulation the criteria that must be considered before authorizing export permits. As with all regulations, all Canadians will be able to provide input into developing these criteria.
Mr. Speaker, today on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the Hanjin Seattle cargo ship debris spill in my riding, I tabled a motion to address coastal debris. Still, community groups are leading cleanup efforts without any help from the current government. Government officials have indicated that there is a near-complete legislative and regulatory void for coastal debris cleanup, and that there is no dedicated fund.The Liberals love talking about their world-class oceans protection plan, but nothing is happening. I have a simple question. Will the minister create a permanent dedicated annual fund for coastal debris cleanup?
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was speaking to the member for Milton. I want to be clear that I was not questioning her numeracy skills. I have the highest respect for the member for Milton, who I know has had a positive business career. What I am questioning and what I would question for the member for Carleton is the numbers that he is actually focusing on. In his case, the numbers he should focus on are the more than 16,000 children in his riding who are getting the Canada child benefit, on average $520 per family. This is what we are doing for Canadians. We are making families better off so that they can actually move forward, to have confidence
Mr. Speaker, Canada's story is the story of immigration. Those who choose Canada bring with them their unique culture, skills, and an entrepreneurial spirit that strengthens our economy. My family immigrated to Canada 18 years ago to build a better life for our son. We sacrificed, we worked hard, and now I sit in the House as the member for Scarborough Centre. Could the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship please update the House on how our government's historic immigration levels plan will continue the tradition of welcoming newcomers to Canada?
Mr. Speaker, one thing we can all agree on is that the Minister of Finance needs help in one thing in counting: he better count on getting some better communications advice.The Prime Minister said this week: ...I am not trying to blame the Ethics Commissioner, I am trying to trust the Ethics Commissioner. That is what opposition members need to do. That is exactly what we are doing as well. After weeks of misleading and memory lapses, the Government of Canada has shown that it does not trust the Ethics Commissioner, but I think Canadians actually do.The minister put himself in a direct conflict, and he broke the law when he failed to disclose
Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise my point of order at this point, before I go on with the Thursday question.I rise on a point of order regarding comments just made during question period. The Minister of Finance said directly that our deputy leader did not know how to count. Our deputy leader has been a member of Parliament here for nine years. She has a law degree from Osgoode Hall Law School. She has been a CEO. She clearly knows how to count, and so much more. These are some of the reasons, many times, women do not want to get involved in the political process. When maybe things are tough, insults like thatBimbo, You don't know how to count, You're not smart, You're a puppetare hurled at women politicians and at women in general. I hope that is not what the Minister of Finance was trying to do, but I would like to give him the opportunity to apologize to our very qualified, very smart, and very capable deputy House leader.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the President of the Treasury Board will have a lot more respect for the Information Commissioner. She said yesterday that the access to information reforms are smoke and mirrors from the Liberal government; while it is promising transparency, these reforms actually turn back the clock on the rights of citizens. It was the Information Commissioner who said that.Is the Liberal Party preparing other sponsorship scandals that it wants to keep under wraps?
Mr. Speaker, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner clearly said that many ministers are using the same loophole that the finance minister used to hide his assets. However, the Prime Minister assured us that the finance minister was the only one to do so.The question is simple: how many other cabinet ministers are using the same loophole and who are they?
Mr. Speaker, are these ethical standards if the Liberals cannot even enforce the bare minimum they should be following?The Prime Minister is showing his contempt for the House, which is calling for explanations for his ethical lapses and those of his government.However, the facts are clear. This Prime Minister is still under investigation for his trip to the Aga Khan's private island. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has identified one, two, three, four minsters who are using the loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act.The commissioner is also concerned about the role the minister played in Bill C-27. This government said that it would live up to the highest ethical standards.Why then can the government not even enforce the bare minimum?
Mr. Speaker, there is no issue on which I stand with a prouder sense of commitment and accomplishment than on the issue of housing. Not only in the first budget did we double the amount of money going to provinces and our partners in the municipalities, but we have now committed to a 10-year program to create the first ever national strategy for housing. This is going to be a game changer. We have consulted widely with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We have listened to their needs about repairs, about construction, and about subsidies. We will be delivering the best housing policy our country has ever seen. I can only hope the party opposite does not vote against it once again.
Mr. Speaker, to call that answer vague would be an understatement, and I am nowhere near convinced. If the government does not provide health and security services to the people, it should hand that tax revenue over to the provinces, which do. On another matter, today the media reported that Quebec's religious neutrality law could be challenged as early as tomorrow. Quebec has the right to make its own decisions about rules governing the relationship between the state and its people. That is a fundamental right.Will the government respect Quebec's jurisdiction, as stated in the motion we adopted, and will it promise not to pay for any legal challenge to Quebec's religious neutrality law?
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Youth brags about working to give young people better opportunities, but according to Generation Squeeze, government spending on youth programming is down $19 billion compared with 40 years ago.This is mystifying, given that youth today are worse off than people their age were 40 years ago, despite being more likely to have post-secondary degrees. They certainly have no shortage of needs, including funding for post-secondary studies, access to affordable housing, help to cope with growing food insecurity, and a national daycare system, to name but a few.When will the Minister of Youth finally put his money where his mouth is and support youth?
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the indulgence. I only offer a small commentary, in addition to what we have heard.My friend has pointed out that the Prime Minister made a statement in the House that there was only one of his ministers, the Minister of Finance who was using this ethical loophole, this numbered company. We have to take members at their word that, when they speak in the House, that word is speaking the truth.We then had the unfortunate situation in which the Ethics Commissioner, when contacted by the media to clarify if the Prime Minister was in fact correct that there was only one of his ministers who had broken his own promise that things would be divulged, had to then essentially correct the Prime Minister saying that her earlier statement was still true.Now the reasons she has as Ethics Commissioner to keep the number somewhat vague, as less than five but more than one, is something that is at her discretion. That is not for us to judge.The concern we have not only is the potential case in which the Prime Minister may have misled the House of Commons on an important issue facing Canadians, but it is also thatafter so many weeks upon weeks of Liberal ministers, including the Prime Minister and the finance minister, saying how much faith they had in the Ethics Commissionerin effect they are using Parliament and parliamentary privilege to undermine the Ethics Commissioner's own statements to the Canadian public.Canadians are wondering what is going on within the Liberal cabinet. This is important in terms of our being able to do our jobs as opposition members on behalf of Canadians. Our job, primarily, is to hold the government to account, to find out what the government is and is not doing, and to find out whether it is keeping good faith with Canadians.I will remind the Speaker and all members that, in both their mandate letters and in the declaration from the Prime Minister, the instruction was crystal clear: they were not to simply follow the letter of the law, of the Conflict of Interest Act, but also the spirit of the law, and second, they were to make available all of their personal assets and holdings to the fullest public scrutiny.That is what the Prime Minister of this country promised us. That is what the Prime Minister later went on to contradict, both in word and deed.I look forward to your ruling on this, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to finally settling this matter, which can only be done, by the way, by the Prime Minister, his finance minister, and the other ministers in his cabinet who have been holding secret accounts in numbered companies, withholding that information from Canadians, which has put them in an obvious case of conflict of interest, from my perspective and that of others.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is blaming everybody but the finance minister or himself for the scandal that is before us. The Prime Minister is all but directly blaming the Ethics Commissioner, blaming the Ethics Commissioner for the finance minister's several inexcusable lapses of judgment and for the Prime Minister's own willingness to look the other way.Why is the Prime Minister misleading Parliament about other ministers' actions? Is the Prime Minister's Office calling the Ethics Commissioner a liar?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the opposition was levelling baseless accusations. Today, the Liberals are accusing the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner of providing false information about their own minister's situation. I wonder who are the ones making baseless accusations in the House.My question is simple: now that we know that his finance minister is in a direct conflict of interest, I would like to know why the Prime Minister misled Parliament and all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, we have full confidence in the Ethics Commissioner. We will review what the member has brought forward to the House and report back in due course.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring to your attention a grave and disturbing matter that occurred yesterday while riding the House of Commons bus. I stand with a very heavy heart for this point of order because it was exactly for that reason I went into politics, to be a voice for the most vulnerable and fight for the rights of women, especially immigrant women, and bring their voice to Ottawa to fight against racism, agism, and sexism.Now I will state the facts. I was sitting on an outside seat when the member for SpadinaFort York entered the bus. The member stopped and hovered over me. He began to wave his hand in my face, chastised and intimidated me for something I said in the House earlier in the day. Yesterday, during question period, the Prime Minister was giving one of his non-answers to a question about the government transferring up to half a billion dollars into the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, while at the same time the PBO reported the government was behind on infrastructure spending within Canada. With great emotion and pride, I said Canada is our home. For some reason, the member took issue with my statement and began to intimidate me for raising it, making suggestions to alternative statements I could have made. I did not have time to give you the proper notice of a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, but I reserve the right to do so. I do so for the following reasons. Responding to threats was among the first matters of parliamentary privilege dealt with in Canada. Page 198 of the second edition of Joseph Maginot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada tells us of an incident in 1758 where the Nova Scotia House of Assembly proceeded against someone who made threats against a member. In a ruling on September 19, 1973, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, at page 6709 of the Debates, stated that he had: no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats and attempts at intimidation. Mr. Speaker Bosley, on May 16, 1986, at page 13362 of Debates, ruled that the threat or attempt to intimidate could not be hypothetical, but that it must be real or have occurred. I have a whole bus of passengers who witnessed this whole incident.On March 24, 1994, at page 2705 of Debates, Mr. Speaker Parent said: Threats of blackmail or intimidation of a member of Parliament should never be taken lightly. When such occurs, the very essence of free speech is undermined. Without the guarantee of freedom of speech, no member of Parliament can do his duty as expected. This attempt to intimidate me was directly linked to what I said in the House earlier in the day, and that, Mr. Speaker, should be grounds enough to warrant a favourable ruling for a question of privilege.Hiding behind a prime minister who claims to be a feminist does not give the member the right to intimidate another member of the same House of another party. Female members of all three parties were on the bus. They witnessed everything he did and how he intimidated me. Therefore, I reserve the right for a question of privilege with proper notice.
Mr. Speaker, what I can say to the member opposite is: wrong again.What happened here is that I disclosed all of my assets, and in fact there was an administrative error that we satisfied the commissioner with the $200 fine I paid. We are trying to work to help Canadians and not play the games that the members opposite are trying to play, because we know that was what we were elected to do. For all of those Canadians who looked at what we announced last week, the level of growth our country is seeing, and the improvements we are going to make in the Canada child benefit and the working income tax benefit, we are going to tell them that we are working for them.
Mr. Speaker, Canada's big city mayors have sounded the alarm. One in five renters spend more than half their income on housing, and 1.5 million families cannot find affordable housing.In Montreal, 25,000 families are on the waiting list for social housing, and in Toronto, 58,000 community housing units are in need of immediate repair.As the minister prepares to announce the details of his housing strategy, will he commit to investing the funding necessary to maintain and expand social housing stock?
Mr. Speaker, marijuana growers in my riding of KootenayColumbia have formed a co-op to advance their rights. They are concerned that the government will not license growers who farm outdoors and that licensing will go only to large corporate indoor growers. Indeed, Liberals on the health committee already voted down an NDP motion to allow provinces to develop production regimes that would support local economies.As the government moves to legalize the recreational use of cannabis, will it stand with and support economically important, small-scale outdoor farmers across Canada and ensure that they have a future, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, to join the treaty, we would first have to respect it.Experts have testified to the serious problems in the bill to implement the Arms Trade Treaty. Two detailed reports have been issued that insist that the government's Bill C-47 does not reflect either the spirit or the letter of the treaty. Nothing in the bill would prevent future arms deals with human rights abusers.I ask the minister again. Will the government amend the bill or withdraw it and start over?
Mr. Speaker, Parks Canada primarily exhibits the objects under its care at Parks Canada-administered national parks and national historic sites in every province and territory.In 2012, Parks Canada decided to build a purpose-built collection facility to ensure the sustainable care and management of the collection not currently on display throughout Canada. There are approximately 31 million artifacts under Parks Canada's care, and 60% of the collection is under threat due to inappropriate environmental storage conditions and lack of appropriate security.We are working to ensure the protection and preservation of the collection and its display throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, our strategy is to continue improving the lives of Canadian families and the middle class across the country. That is what matters. That is why we introduced the Canada child benefit, which makes life better for 300,000 children. That is why we improved the working income tax benefit for Canadians who are seriously struggling. We will continue to work for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, that minister hid an offshore company in France, and then he hid $20 million of Morneau Shepell shares from Canadians. Now that Canadians know he held those shares, because of investigative journalism and not because of his transparency, he has admitted that it was not the right thing to do, has sold those shares, and is now saying he will give back the ill-gotten gains. We need to know what other inappropriate investments the minister might be hiding in his holding companies. Why does he not tell us what is in those companies?
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the Liberals are centralists. They centralized decision-making on regional economic development in Toronto, and they centralized political decision-making on issues such as the elimination of the political lieutenant for Quebec in Ottawa. They are now preparing to centralize the arts by transferring a wide range of artifacts from Quebec City, the bastion of the Canadian francophonie, to the nation's capital.Will the member for Québec promise us that he will fight in cabinet to reverse this decision?
Mr. Speaker, our position on the issue has always been clear. We will always promote and protect rights and freedoms because we believe in the importance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not for the state to say what a person can or cannot wear.We are currently examining the application of the law. I thank my colleagues for their support on this issue.
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?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I spoke with a member of the opposition. He told me that it was not personal, that what happens here in the House is just a game. For us, it is not a game. It is really important to Canadians. We know that for the 300,000 children lifted out of poverty, it is intensely personal. We will continue to work with Canadians to improve the Canada's situation. That is our goal.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the issue of contradictory information given to members regarding the number of cabinet ministers who are currently using a conflict of interest loophole to avoid divesting personal investments or putting them in a blind trust. This contradictory information has been provided by an officer of Parliament, the Ethics Commissioner, and by the Prime Minister. The Ethics Commissioner has said that a number of Liberal cabinet ministers hold controlled assets indirectly, but the Prime Minister contends that only the finance minister does and that he is now in the process of selling shares in Morneau Shepell and setting up a blind trust in the meantime. When pressed to clarify if the Prime Minister was correct in his assertion that the Minister of Finance is the lone minister exploiting a loophole, Ms. Dawson's office confirmed via an email from her spokesperson, Jocelyne Brisebois, which states: The Office still maintains that there are fewer than five ministers who have controlled assets and no we were not wrong about the information provided in our statement to you. We can say fewer than five ministers, including [the finance minister]. That is, she says the commissioner's office was not wrong.However, on Tuesday, the Prime Minister insisted in the Commons that the finance minister is the only one of his 30 ministers who is currently exploiting this loophole. On page 111 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May, it states that, The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.On February 1, 2002, the Speaker then ruled on a matter in regard to the former minister of national defence: The hon. member for PortageLisgar alleged that the Minister of National Defence deliberately misled the House as to when he knew that prisoners taken by Canadian JTF2 troops in Afghanistan had been handed over to the Americans. In support of that allegation, he cited the minister's responses in question period on two successive days... The Speaker considered the matter and found there was a prima facie question of privilege. He said: The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House. The authorities to which Speaker Milliken was referring include but are not limited to the following. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 115, Misleading a Minister or a Member has also been considered a form of obstruction and thus a prima facie breach of privilege.When the Speaker, in 2002, accepted the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House, he stated that Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation. The Speaker then referred to the first edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 67: There are...affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges...the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; [or that] obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties... The Speaker went on to say: On the basis of the arguments presented by hon. members and in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. I therefore invite the hon. member for PortageLisgar to move his motion. On February 17, 2011, the member for ScarboroughGuildwood and other members argued that a minister had made statements in committee that were different from those made in the House or provided to the House in written form. These members argued that the material available showed that contradictory information had been provided. As a result, they argued that this demonstrated that the minister deliberately misled the House and that as such a prima facie case of privilege existed.In a ruling of March 9, 2011, the Speaker then pointed out: ...when asked who inserted the word not in the assessment of the KAIROS funding application, in testimony [before the committee] the minister twice replied that she did not know. In a February 14 statement to the House, while she did not indicate that she knew who inserted the word not, the minister addressed this matter by stating that the not was inserted at her direction. At the very least, it can be said that this has caused confusion. The minister has acknowledged this, and has characterized her own handling of the matter as unfortunate. Yet as is evident from hearing the various interventions that have been made since then, the confusion persists. As the member for ScarboroughRouge River told the House, this has confused me. It has confused Parliament. It has confused us in our exercise of holding the government to account, whether it is the Privy Council, whether it is the minister, whether it is public officials; we cannot do our job when there is that type of confusion. In the case raised on February 17, 2011, the contradictory information involved information provided to a committee and information provided to the House. In this case, we have information provided to the House that is contradictory to information provided by an officer of Parliament.On page 222 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, sixth edition, it states that Committees are regarded as creatures of the House.The House of Commons publication Committees Practical Guide states that committees are central to the operations of the House of Commons and allow for detailed examination of complex matters, which offers an opportunity for members to hear from Canadians and experts on topics of national concern and to have these representations placed on the public record. They provide a means for members to probe into the details of policies and programs, thereby further developing an expertise in certain areas. The Privy Council Office, and some governmental documents, refers to the officers of Parliament as Agents of Parliament, thereby emphasizing that they carry out work for Parliament and are responsible to Parliament, and as a means of distinguishing them from other officers and officials of Parliament. It also emphasizes their independence from the government of the day. These officers of Parliament carry out duties assigned by statute, and report to one or both of the Senate and House of Commons. The individuals appointed to these offices perform work on behalf of Parliament, and report to the chambers, usually through the Speakers. I argue that information flowing from an officer of Parliament holds as much weight as information flowing from a standing committee, and when this information is contradictory and confuses Parliament, as it has, there is a need to direct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to look at this in the guise of a breach of privilege. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner issued a statement today that said: The Globe and Mail reported this morning that the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is at odds with the Prime Minister over how many cabinet ministers currently hold controlled assets indirectly. This is, in fact, not the case. The Office did not wish to give an exact number when asked how many cabinet ministers indirectly hold controlled assets. The Office indicated fewer than five, giving a general sense of an upper limit to the number, meaning it could be one, two, three or four. This does not clarify anything, and it certainly confuses the issues further. I ask that you find a prima facie question of privilege here. I am prepared to move the proper motion to allow the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to get to the bottom of this matter.If you have any doubts, Mr. Speaker, I refer you to a ruling given on March 21, 1978, at page 3,975 of Debates, which is also referred to in Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, at page 227, where Speaker Jerome quoted a British procedure committee report of 1967, which states in part: ...the Speaker should ask himself [I am sure he meant to say himself or herself], when he has to decide whether to grant precedence over other public business to a motion which a Member who has complained of some act or conduct as constituting a breach of privilege desires to move, should be notdo I consider that, assuming that the facts are as stated, the act or conduct constitutes a breach of privilege, but could it reasonably be held to be a breach of privilege, or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should, in my view, leave it to the House. Mr. Speaker, I submit this matter to your wise judgment.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will not be playing games. We will focus on Canadians.For the member for ReginaQu'Appelle, we know that for the 16,090 children who have received the Canada child benefit, an average of $700 per family, it is not a game. It is helping their families. That is what we are working to do, and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I was saddened to read today that the leader of the official opposition has adopted Stephen Harper's approach to the opioid crisis. He is proposing that people with addiction issues should be arrested and incarcerated instead of being provided the help they need to stay alive and work toward a healthy future. The fact that the Conservatives want to reinstate Stephen Harper's failed strategy is irresponsible. People with addiction issues need help, not incarceration.Will the Minister of Health please update this House on her efforts to address the opioid crisis and provide needed support
Mr. Speaker, I know the finance minister is getting irritated by the process of accountability around this place, but he did not reveal all of his assets to the Ethics Commissioner; he kept hidden his offshore company in France. That is why she found him in violation of the law and required that he pay a punitive fine. Now he is hiding other assets within different holding companies. He could make these questions go away if he would simply tell Canadians what he is hiding in his vast network of numbered companies and trust funds.
Mr. Speaker, the minister is absolutely right. Canadians' trust is not a game. It is to be safeguarded, but right now, the minister is undermining it. For the past three weeks, the Prime Minister has gone on ad nauseam about how he trusts the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Now that the commissioner is saying there are two, three, or maybe four ministers playing the same game as this minister and hiding their assets from Canadians, all of a sudden the Prime Minister is saying she is wrong.My question is simple. Was the Minister of Finance actually in conflict of interest? When did the Prime Minister know about it?
Mr. Speaker, we know on this side of the House that some of the members of the opposition have a tough time counting.What we know is that the number two is less than the number five. What we can say is that there are two: one member who divested all of the assets 18 months ago and another member, me, who has divested his assets most recently. It is quite clear. It is up there on the website to see.We will continue to work with Canadians and not play these games.
Mr. Speaker, if I am wrong, then so too must be the Ethics Commissioner who fined the finance minister for not disclosing his assets. Is that some kind of a compliance fine that she issued him? My last question for the finance minister would be that if he actually if he did disclose his assets for the past few years, will he be asking for his $200 back?
Time.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told the House yesterday that Liberals trust and honour the work of the Ethics Commissioner. The Prime Minister has been telling us all week to trust the Ethics Commissioner. Now the Prime Minister's Office is telling us she is wrong about the number of Liberal ministers using conflict loopholes. We trust the Ethics Commissioner. Just how many ministers have gamed the spirit of the Conflict of Interest Act?
Mr. Speaker, the answer is nothing. The answer is that I have exposed all of my assets to the Ethics Commissioner.What I can say for the record
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the finance minister said that our deputy leader cannot count, when in fact he is the one who is 100% over his promised deficit levels. He said that others do not know what assets are, when he is the one who just forgot to report his asset, an offshore company in France, to the Ethics Commissioner. Instead of lashing out at others, why does the finance minister not just let go of all the secrets and tell Canadians what he is hiding in all of his holding companies?
Mr. Speaker, to repeat, we have a process in this House that we work with the Ethics Commissioner so that we can expose all of our assets to her and that is in fact what I have done. In terms of disclosure, 100% disclosure is the highest number we can get. That is what I have done. That allowed her to give me recommendations on what we should do to ensure that we do not have conflicts of interest. That is what we expect all 338 members of this House to do. We will continue to respect the Ethics Commissioner. We will continue to work on behalf of Canadians, which is what we were elected to do.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader if she could please tell us what business is happening for the rest of this week and next week before we go back for our Remembrance Day ceremonies.
Mr. Speaker, this morning we started second reading debate on Bill C-63, the budget implementation act. We will continue debate on this legislation this afternoon.Tomorrow we will commence second reading debate of Bill S-5, concerning amendments to the Tobacco Act.On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of next week, we shall continue with debate on the budget bill. Last Thursday I indicated to the House that we would allot four days of debate at second reading, which means we would expect the vote to send the bill to committee to take place on Wednesday evening. I would like to thank opposition House leaders for their co-operation in finding agreement on this timeline.On Thursday, we will resume debate on Bill C-45 on cannabis, and hope to conclude the debate at report stage. We will also be working to pass Bill C-17 on the Yukon before the next constituency week.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-47 on the Arms Trade Treaty has numerous flaws. For instance, it does not impose any firm legal limits on the authority of the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding the approval of arms exports. Furthermore, it does not cover exports to the U.S., which account for 50% of our arms exports.Experts who appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development talked about the serious concerns they have.Will the government agree to amend the bill, or even better, withdraw it and start over?
Mr. Speaker, exactly no one in first nation communities believes what the minister just said. Liberals seem to have invented a whole new game. It is called Ethics Bingo. How many Liberals have secret numbered companies they have not told Canadians about? Is it one? Yes, there is one. Is it two? Oh yes, at least two. Is it three? Tell me when I get to the right one and we can all yell bingo together. Enough with the games. Here are the Prime Minister's pre-end zone instructions to his ministers: ...you must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality...and the arrangement of your private affairs should bear the closest public scrutiny. When are they actually going to live up to those words, or are they just meaningless words written on paper?
Mr. Speaker, no one here thinks that it is a game to expect ministers to be held accountable, to be open, and transparent. However, there are some ministers who have been playing a game. It was called Hide the assets. In the case of the finance minister, it lasted two years. All that the opposition wants to know and all that Canadians want to know is who are the ministers who are using similar loopholes, how many are there, and when did the Prime Minister know this was going on?
Mr. Speaker, who is telling the truth, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner or the Prime Minister? I do not trust the Prime Minister, so I will go with the commissioner, as the Prime Minister has asked us to do every time a Liberal scandal has erupted over the past two years. However, we see through the Prime Minister, who is using the commissioner to distract from the real problem, namely the Minister of Finance and all his cover-ups.Why is he defending the indefensible? What is the Minister of Finance hiding in his numbered companies?
Mr. Speaker, since the finance minister has been exposed for hiding his assets in numerous multi-numbered companies, the Ethics Commissioner has stated that there are up to five other ministers who may be doing exactly the same thing.There is an unnamed senior government official who has decided to refute these claims, suggesting that the claims are actually wrong and her office is not correct in what it is saying.I would like to know this. The minister talks about trusting the Ethics Commissioner. Is there a senior government official over there who will actually say that there is no other minister in the same position he put himself in?
Mr. Speaker, I would be happy if the minister could tell me how I am wrong. Am I wrong when I say that the minister hid his assets for two years? Is the Ethics Commissioner wrong when she says there is more than one minister, but fewer than five? Are Canadians wrong to expect a little bit better from this finance minister and this Prime Minister?Once again, simple questions deserve simple answers. Who are the other ministers that are using the same loophole the finance minister used?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in this chamber, I had a member of the opposition come over to tell me not to take it personally because what happens here is just a game. For our government it is absolutely not a game. We are working to improve the lives of Canadians. For those 300,000 children who are being lifted out of poverty, for their parents, it is intensely personal. They care about our country and they care about their families.We will not play the games of the opposition. We are going to work on behalf of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the member seems to have some trouble with numbers. What I can say is that two is less than five. Those are the numbers. What we can say is that we want to continue working with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner so that our government can be certain that it does not have conflicts of interest. That will continue to be our approach. We will work with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That is the government's method.
It is actually laughable, Mr. Speaker, to hear the finance minister talking about counting, because the thing he has been counting since he became the finance minister is the mountain of cash that he has made off Morneau Shepell shares and dividends. The Prime Minister does have a problem. He either agrees that the Ethics Commissioner is right that the finance minister broke the law, or he disagrees with her and says everything is fine. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot suck and blow at the same time. The finance minister has been found guilty and fined by the Ethics Commissioner. How could the finance minister betray the trust of Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, it has been exactly one year since Parliament ordered the Liberal government to stop defying the Human Rights Tribunal and immediately flow that $155-million shortfall on child welfare. The government refused, saying that it would be like throwing confetti. No, it is about protecting children like 12-year-old Amy Owen, who, before she died wrote on Facebook, I am just a kid and my life is a nightmare.To the minister, stop defending the same feeble funding formula for child welfare established by Stephen Harper. Why will the minister refuse to flow that money that was ordered by the Parliament of Canada?
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister thinks he can make difficult questions about his secrets go away by lashing out personally against those asking those questions. Earlier today he made belittling comments about our deputy leader and others who are simply doing their jobs. The only thing that will make these questions go away is for the minister to finally answer them. The minister was hiding $20 million of Morneau Shepell shares in only one of his holding companies. Can he please tell us what else he is hiding in his other holding companies?
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister did not go further. He was fined by the Ethics Commissioner for breaking the rules. Instead of owning up to it, he is clearly irritated and throwing insults. I think the finance minister may need a little break at his French villa over the next few weeks.Seriously, this is a very serious issue when the Minister of Finance is hiding assets. I have a simple question. No insults, please. What else is the finance minister hiding in his other numbered companies?
That is coming from the party of the sponsorship scandal, Mr. Speaker. The Information Commissioner dropped a bombshell yesterday. The Liberals' new no access to information bill, Bill C-58, will make things even worse than they were under Stephen Harper and Jean Chrétien. Ethics, cash for access, and open government were all promises made, and all promises that were broken. From the sponsorship scandal to missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls, all of this came to light through access to information.Will the minister listen to civil society, immigration groups, and first nations, and fix this bad bill?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his work and his tireless efforts in this matter. Like him, I was extremely disappointed yesterday when I heard the opposition leader's outdated belief. Unlike the Conservatives, our government is actually supporting law enforcement where it matters. Rather than prosecuting those with mental health and addiction issues, we are disrupting illegal drugs at the border and diverting people out of the criminal justice system.With Bill C-37 and C-224, our government is taking a compassionate, evidence-based approach to reduce barriers to treatment and encourage innovative measures to prevent overdoses and save lives.
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has placed the Ethics Commissioner in an impossible position, first by withholding information from the commissioner, then by claiming that she supported everything he did, but she fined him for not complying with the act. Instead of insulting MPs and insinuating that female elected representatives cannot do math, why does the finance minister not just come clean and answer the questions?
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is wrong, and he knows he is wrong. I disclosed all of my assets to the Ethics Commissioner and will continue to work with her. We will not play the games they are playing. We will continue to work with Canadians.
Shame on you, Bill, you're being dishonest. You're being very dishonest.
Mr. Speaker, our government has introduced a comprehensive framework for the strict regulation of the production, distribution, and consumption of cannabis. We have been working collaboratively with our provincial and territorial partners. Health Canada administers a very effective system of licensing for those who meet the requirements of that regulation to ensure that what will be consumed by Canadians is of known potency and purity. Those rules are important for the health and safety of all Canadians, and we will continue to promote them.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that our government is committed to living up to the highest standards. That is why we are working with the Ethics Commissioner to make sure that in all of our situations, she understands all of our assets. That is why we are taking her recommendations, as we all have, in order to move forward and ensure that none of us has conflicts of interest. We know that is the way we get to do the work we were hired to do by Canadians, which is working to continue to grow our economy and making sure that we have a fair situation where people get the benefits of that growth. That is what Canadians are seeing. That is what we will keep doing.
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. We know that is very important. We believe that the best way to ensure that we are not in a conflict of interest is by working with her. That way, we can do the work that is important for Canadians. That is our approach. We now have the highest rate of economic growth and the lowest rate of unemployment in a decade. That is good for Canada and Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, as we have said, working with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is very important. That is what we have done. We have a lot of respect for her. Our government believes that this is the best way to ensure we are not in conflict of interest. We will continue to follow this approach because that is how we get to do the important work for Canadians. This really is not a game. It is very important to families across the country.
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is the hon. member for Toronto Centre, but it is not honourable to suggest that our deputy leader cannot count. It is not honourable to suggest that our finance critic is obtuse. It is not honourable for the member to deny his own mistakes and his own omissions. When will the hon. member do the right thing and apologize to Canadians for his mistakes?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right, we are very proud of our oceans protection plan, which now has approached its first-year anniversary and we have announced over 50 measures. With respect to ships that lose cargo, it is very clear that they are responsible for the cleaning. That is the situation with the Hanjin Seattle that my colleague is referring to.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that members opposite trust the Ethics Commissioner, as we do. We have worked with the Ethics Commissioner to make sure that we can ensure all of our situations are fully exposed and that she can provide recommendations for us on how we can ensure we do not have conflicts of interest. I can say from my standpoint that was an important exercise to ensure I do not have conflicts of interest.We will continue to do that. That allows us to get to the work we want to do on behalf of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, again, we have the highest respect for the Ethics Commissioner and will continue to work with her to make sure that her work, which is so important, can continue to be done in a respectful way. That is our approach. We know that the approach to disclosing all of our assets to her is important. Taking her recommendations, which we have done, is important. That will allow us to continue to help all Canadian constituents across the country, including those who live in constituencies of members across the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, we have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to bringing equity for children in this country. As it relates to child and family services and the gaps that exist there, we recognize that we are facing a national crisis in terms of the way indigenous children are overrepresented in the child welfare system.As of this week, I have called for an emergency meeting of all appropriate partners. The provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, first nations, Inuit, and Métis will get together and we will solve this crisis together.
Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the Conservatives promised to reform the Access to Information Act. They did nothing for 10 years. Their government was the first in the Commonwealth to be found in contempt of Parliament. We will take no lessons from the most secretive government of all time.
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work with the Ethics Commissioner. We believe that is important. It is important also to focus on how Canadian families are feeling right now. They are seeing the highest growth rate they have seen in a decade. They are seeing more than 450,000 new jobs created over the last couple of years. They are seeing the lowest rate of unemployment that they have seen, again, in a decade. This is a good situation for Canadians. We know there is much more to do. That is why we said we were going to index the Canada child benefit two years in advance. That is why we are putting in place an increase in the working income tax benefit. These are important things to help our country move forward.
Mr. Speaker, our government has been working very closely with our provincial and territorial partners. There have been ongoing discussions with the provinces and territories about the appropriate taxation and price regimens to be put in place. That is part of an ongoing and important discussion. That discussion has been characterized by close co-operation and collaboration between all parties.
Mr. Speaker, yes, I can say that the member opposite is wrong when he says that I did not disclose all of my assets. I worked with the Ethics Commissioner, as all of us on this side are committed to doing. We will continue to do so.What I can also say is that Canadians were right when they decided to elect our government, because they knew that we would focus on them, and not focus on playing games that are not to their advantage or their families' advantage. Happily for them, our country is in a much better situation with higher growth and a better situation for their families across this country.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to assure members of this House and all Canadians that we are delivering on our campaign commitment to join the Arms Trade Treaty. Tackling the illicit trade in weapons is essential for the protection of people and of human rights. Bill C-47 would put into regulations the criteria that must be considered before authorizing export permits. As with all regulations, all Canadians will be able to provide input into developing these criteria.
Mr. Speaker, thinking about counting for the member for Milton, there are 25,630 children in her riding whose families are getting on average $520 more through the Canada child benefit. Those are the numbers that we know matter to Canadians.With respect to working with the Ethics Commissioner, we will continue to do so because we know that is the right way for us to fully allow us to do our work, exposing all of our assets, which all of us have done, including me, working with her and taking her recommendations to make sure we can get on with the important work we are doing for the people of Milton.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said to this House, I believe it is important that we work with the Ethics Commissioner. That is important. That is, in fact, exactly what I did. By exposing all of my assets, 100% of my assets, to the Ethics Commissioner when we came into office, I was able to get recommendations from her on how to best move forward to avoid conflicts of interest, as the other members of our government have done. We know that is the way we get to do the important work for Canadians, not to play games or go for personal attacks that really do not advance the cause of any Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member for Carleton does not actually know what an asset is, but all my assets were exposed to the Ethics Commissioner. What I can say is that we continue to work on behalf of Canadians, and we will continue to do so.For the member opposite, the member for Carleton, what I can say is for the more than 16,000 children in his riding who are getting the Canada child benefit, an average of $430 per family, we are proud that we are able to help those families.
Mr. Speaker, after more than 30 years, we are the first government to modernize the Access to Information Act, and we are applying it to ministers' offices through proactive disclosure. I understand why the NDP does not like proactive disclosure. When we were in opposition and the Prime Minister was the leader of the Liberals in opposition, he led the charge on proactive disclosure of MPs' expenses. The Conservatives signed on to it quite quickly, but the NDP members were dragged kicking and screaming to disclose their expenses to the Canadian public. They did not like proactive disclosure then, and they do not like it today.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is, and always will be, associated with the sponsorship scandal.Canadians believed that the Liberals got the message, but they did not get it at all. The Liberal government is introducing a bill on access to information that would prevent the excellent work of journalists, people like Daniel Leblanc and others, from revealing things like the sponsorship scandal. We are not the ones saying so. Yesterday, the Information Commissioner said: ...I went back to the request...that uncovered the sponsorship scandal and that request would not meet their new requirement under [this bill]. Why does the Liberal Party want to hide other sponsorship scandals?
Mr. Speaker, what I will continue to do with Canadians is listen to their issues, make sure that we are addressing them, and move forward not only to ensure that we have a high level of economic growth in the country but that Canadians see the benefits of that growth for themselves and their families. That is what we have been doing for the last couple of years. While the members of the official opposition have been playing games, we have actually been trying to work for Canadians.The good news is, it is working, with a higher level of economic growth than we have seen in a decade and a lower level of unemployment than we have seen in a decade. We have over 450,000 more Canadians working. Jobs matter.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say for the record that I hold the Ethics Commissioner in the highest regard. We believe that it is important that we have an officer of Parliament who helps all of us here in the House to ensure that we can expose our personal assets and do it in a way that allows us to take recommendations on how we can assure that we do not have conflicts of interest. That is our continuing approach.I will continue to work with her, as I have thus far. As I have said to this House, I have gone farther than her recommendations to make absolutely sure that in my position, there cannot be even a perception of conflict.
Mr. Speaker, displacing artifacts like that and bringing them here is an outrage.Bill C-63 revealed that the government wants to start taxing pot. That is another way of stirring up trouble in Quebec and lining their own pockets. We know that Quebec, not Ottawa, will have to pick up the tab for costs related to health and security. Will the government promise to leave that money to Quebec, or will it once again try to line its own pockets without even doing a thing?
Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that, in fact, my state of mind is not irritated but actually encouraged with the economy that we are seeing for Canadians. We have seen, over two years, a very positive change in our economy. We have seen, in two years, a very positive change for middle-class Canadians and families across our country. That is what we are here to do, so we will continue to do the good work and not play the games that the other party is playing.
Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister can help us out. Am I getting warmer or colder? It is more than one, but fewer than five. Is it four? Is it three? Is it two? Why can this minister not just answer simple questions?Who are the other ministers and how many are there?
Mr. Speaker, to repeat, working with the Ethics Commissioner is the approach we have in this House. It is to respect the officer of Parliament who has that duty. That is what we will continue to do. It allows us to do the work we have been asked to do on behalf of Canadians. We will not get distracted by the games from the other side. We will not get distracted by the personal attacks. We will continue to be focused on Canadians. That focus is working. Canadians are in a much better situation two years later than they were when we came into office, so we will continue to do that good work on behalf of them.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Saint BonifaceSaint Vital for his question and for his leadership of the indigenous caucus.I believe that all members of this House are disturbed by the disproportionate rates of indigenous children in the child welfare system, over 50% by the most recent census. We have some of the highest rates of indigenous child apprehension in the world. That is one of the reasons I have called an emergency meeting, along with indigenous leaders. First nations, Inuit, and Métis leaders have asked for provinces and territories to come together with child welfare experts and advocates. We will find solutions, and we will work together to promote prevention and
Mr. Speaker, I can say that we are very proud of our historic investments in young Canadians across the country.First, we boosted the Canada summer jobs program by an unprecedented $300 million. Next, we made a historic investment in education by increasing funding for student grants by 50%. Recently, we invested $400 million to create co-op placements for young Canadians.We fully understand that an investment in youth is an investment in our country's future, and that is exactly what we will keep doing.
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said from the start, no relationship is more important to our government than our relationship with indigenous peoples. That is why the Prime Minister announced the dismantling of the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs. As we all know, far too many indigenous children end up in the child welfare system in Canada. We know the system is broken, and we know the system must be fixed. Could the Minister of Indigenous Services please update the House as to what is being done to protect the health and safety of indigenous children?
Mr. Speaker, we are proud to be the first government in more than 30 years to modernize the Access to Information Act. I want to be very clear on a specific issue the hon. member raised in regard to indigenous peoples.I will be very clear that we will support an amendment that would require departments to seek approval from the Information Commissioner before refusing a request. This would ensure that broad requests would not be refused simply because they were broadly applied in their descriptions. We want to ensure that this modernization of access to information strengthens the regime, and we are open to narrowing the application of this clause,
Mr. Speaker, we are the first government in 30 years to want to update the Access to Information Act, and we will work with the Information Commissioner to do so.In fact, let us be very clear. For the first time in history, our government is giving the commissioner order-making power. For the first time in history, we are actually applying the Access to Information Act to ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office. The Conservatives did nothing to modernize the act in 10 years. We are getting it done.
Mr. Speaker, the only way to know if he is making Canadians better off instead of just making himself better off is just to reveal what investments he has held over the last two years in his vast network of holding companies and trust funds. We just recently found out that the minister was taking $65,000 a month in dividends from a company that he simultaneously regulated. He introduced a bill that would help that company.The only way to put all of this to bed and put an end to these questions for the minister is for him to come clean and tell us what he is hiding in those
Mr. Speaker, we made a promise to Canadians that we will fix the immigration system to grow our economy and reunite families and eliminate the backlogs that were left behind by the Conservatives. Our multi-year immigration plan is the most ambitious yet. It supports GDP growth, attracts more investment into Canada, creates additional jobs for Canadians, and boosts innovation. We on this side of the House understand that immigration, together with a welcoming society, is what has made Canada
Mr. Speaker, we are keeping our election promise to join the Arms Trade Treaty. Regulating the illicit trade in weapons is essential for the protection of human rights.Bill C-47 would put into regulation the criteria that must be considered before authorizing export permits. As with all regulations, all Canadians will be able to provide input into developing these criteria.
Mr. Speaker, today on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the Hanjin Seattle cargo ship debris spill in my riding, I tabled a motion to address coastal debris. Still, community groups are leading cleanup efforts without any help from the current government. Government officials have indicated that there is a near-complete legislative and regulatory void for coastal debris cleanup, and that there is no dedicated fund.The Liberals love talking about their world-class oceans protection plan, but nothing is happening. I have a simple question. Will the minister create a permanent dedicated annual fund for coastal debris cleanup?
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was speaking to the member for Milton. I want to be clear that I was not questioning her numeracy skills. I have the highest respect for the member for Milton, who I know has had a positive business career. What I am questioning and what I would question for the member for Carleton is the numbers that he is actually focusing on. In his case, the numbers he should focus on are the more than 16,000 children in his riding who are getting the Canada child benefit, on average $520 per family. This is what we are doing for Canadians. We are making families better off so that they can actually move forward, to have confidence
Mr. Speaker, Canada's story is the story of immigration. Those who choose Canada bring with them their unique culture, skills, and an entrepreneurial spirit that strengthens our economy. My family immigrated to Canada 18 years ago to build a better life for our son. We sacrificed, we worked hard, and now I sit in the House as the member for Scarborough Centre. Could the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship please update the House on how our government's historic immigration levels plan will continue the tradition of welcoming newcomers to Canada?
Mr. Speaker, one thing we can all agree on is that the Minister of Finance needs help in one thing in counting: he better count on getting some better communications advice.The Prime Minister said this week: ...I am not trying to blame the Ethics Commissioner, I am trying to trust the Ethics Commissioner. That is what opposition members need to do. That is exactly what we are doing as well. After weeks of misleading and memory lapses, the Government of Canada has shown that it does not trust the Ethics Commissioner, but I think Canadians actually do.The minister put himself in a direct conflict, and he broke the law when he failed to disclose
Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise my point of order at this point, before I go on with the Thursday question.I rise on a point of order regarding comments just made during question period. The Minister of Finance said directly that our deputy leader did not know how to count. Our deputy leader has been a member of Parliament here for nine years. She has a law degree from Osgoode Hall Law School. She has been a CEO. She clearly knows how to count, and so much more. These are some of the reasons, many times, women do not want to get involved in the political process. When maybe things are tough, insults like thatBimbo, You don't know how to count, You're not smart, You're a puppetare hurled at women politicians and at women in general. I hope that is not what the Minister of Finance was trying to do, but I would like to give him the opportunity to apologize to our very qualified, very smart, and very capable deputy House leader.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the President of the Treasury Board will have a lot more respect for the Information Commissioner. She said yesterday that the access to information reforms are smoke and mirrors from the Liberal government; while it is promising transparency, these reforms actually turn back the clock on the rights of citizens. It was the Information Commissioner who said that.Is the Liberal Party preparing other sponsorship scandals that it wants to keep under wraps?
Mr. Speaker, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner clearly said that many ministers are using the same loophole that the finance minister used to hide his assets. However, the Prime Minister assured us that the finance minister was the only one to do so.The question is simple: how many other cabinet ministers are using the same loophole and who are they?
Mr. Speaker, are these ethical standards if the Liberals cannot even enforce the bare minimum they should be following?The Prime Minister is showing his contempt for the House, which is calling for explanations for his ethical lapses and those of his government.However, the facts are clear. This Prime Minister is still under investigation for his trip to the Aga Khan's private island. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has identified one, two, three, four minsters who are using the loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act.The commissioner is also concerned about the role the minister played in Bill C-27. This government said that it would live up to the highest ethical standards.Why then can the government not even enforce the bare minimum?
Mr. Speaker, there is no issue on which I stand with a prouder sense of commitment and accomplishment than on the issue of housing. Not only in the first budget did we double the amount of money going to provinces and our partners in the municipalities, but we have now committed to a 10-year program to create the first ever national strategy for housing. This is going to be a game changer. We have consulted widely with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We have listened to their needs about repairs, about construction, and about subsidies. We will be delivering the best housing policy our country has ever seen. I can only hope the party opposite does not vote against it once again.
Mr. Speaker, to call that answer vague would be an understatement, and I am nowhere near convinced. If the government does not provide health and security services to the people, it should hand that tax revenue over to the provinces, which do. On another matter, today the media reported that Quebec's religious neutrality law could be challenged as early as tomorrow. Quebec has the right to make its own decisions about rules governing the relationship between the state and its people. That is a fundamental right.Will the government respect Quebec's jurisdiction, as stated in the motion we adopted, and will it promise not to pay for any legal challenge to Quebec's religious neutrality law?
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Youth brags about working to give young people better opportunities, but according to Generation Squeeze, government spending on youth programming is down $19 billion compared with 40 years ago.This is mystifying, given that youth today are worse off than people their age were 40 years ago, despite being more likely to have post-secondary degrees. They certainly have no shortage of needs, including funding for post-secondary studies, access to affordable housing, help to cope with growing food insecurity, and a national daycare system, to name but a few.When will the Minister of Youth finally put his money where his mouth is and support youth?
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the indulgence. I only offer a small commentary, in addition to what we have heard.My friend has pointed out that the Prime Minister made a statement in the House that there was only one of his ministers, the Minister of Finance who was using this ethical loophole, this numbered company. We have to take members at their word that, when they speak in the House, that word is speaking the truth.We then had the unfortunate situation in which the Ethics Commissioner, when contacted by the media to clarify if the Prime Minister was in fact correct that there was only one of his ministers who had broken his own promise that things would be divulged, had to then essentially correct the Prime Minister saying that her earlier statement was still true.Now the reasons she has as Ethics Commissioner to keep the number somewhat vague, as less than five but more than one, is something that is at her discretion. That is not for us to judge.The concern we have not only is the potential case in which the Prime Minister may have misled the House of Commons on an important issue facing Canadians, but it is also thatafter so many weeks upon weeks of Liberal ministers, including the Prime Minister and the finance minister, saying how much faith they had in the Ethics Commissionerin effect they are using Parliament and parliamentary privilege to undermine the Ethics Commissioner's own statements to the Canadian public.Canadians are wondering what is going on within the Liberal cabinet. This is important in terms of our being able to do our jobs as opposition members on behalf of Canadians. Our job, primarily, is to hold the government to account, to find out what the government is and is not doing, and to find out whether it is keeping good faith with Canadians.I will remind the Speaker and all members that, in both their mandate letters and in the declaration from the Prime Minister, the instruction was crystal clear: they were not to simply follow the letter of the law, of the Conflict of Interest Act, but also the spirit of the law, and second, they were to make available all of their personal assets and holdings to the fullest public scrutiny.That is what the Prime Minister of this country promised us. That is what the Prime Minister later went on to contradict, both in word and deed.I look forward to your ruling on this, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to finally settling this matter, which can only be done, by the way, by the Prime Minister, his finance minister, and the other ministers in his cabinet who have been holding secret accounts in numbered companies, withholding that information from Canadians, which has put them in an obvious case of conflict of interest, from my perspective and that of others.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is blaming everybody but the finance minister or himself for the scandal that is before us. The Prime Minister is all but directly blaming the Ethics Commissioner, blaming the Ethics Commissioner for the finance minister's several inexcusable lapses of judgment and for the Prime Minister's own willingness to look the other way.Why is the Prime Minister misleading Parliament about other ministers' actions? Is the Prime Minister's Office calling the Ethics Commissioner a liar?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the opposition was levelling baseless accusations. Today, the Liberals are accusing the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner of providing false information about their own minister's situation. I wonder who are the ones making baseless accusations in the House.My question is simple: now that we know that his finance minister is in a direct conflict of interest, I would like to know why the Prime Minister misled Parliament and all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, we have full confidence in the Ethics Commissioner. We will review what the member has brought forward to the House and report back in due course.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring to your attention a grave and disturbing matter that occurred yesterday while riding the House of Commons bus. I stand with a very heavy heart for this point of order because it was exactly for that reason I went into politics, to be a voice for the most vulnerable and fight for the rights of women, especially immigrant women, and bring their voice to Ottawa to fight against racism, agism, and sexism.Now I will state the facts. I was sitting on an outside seat when the member for SpadinaFort York entered the bus. The member stopped and hovered over me. He began to wave his hand in my face, chastised and intimidated me for something I said in the House earlier in the day. Yesterday, during question period, the Prime Minister was giving one of his non-answers to a question about the government transferring up to half a billion dollars into the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, while at the same time the PBO reported the government was behind on infrastructure spending within Canada. With great emotion and pride, I said Canada is our home. For some reason, the member took issue with my statement and began to intimidate me for raising it, making suggestions to alternative statements I could have made. I did not have time to give you the proper notice of a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, but I reserve the right to do so. I do so for the following reasons. Responding to threats was among the first matters of parliamentary privilege dealt with in Canada. Page 198 of the second edition of Joseph Maginot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada tells us of an incident in 1758 where the Nova Scotia House of Assembly proceeded against someone who made threats against a member. In a ruling on September 19, 1973, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, at page 6709 of the Debates, stated that he had: no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats and attempts at intimidation. Mr. Speaker Bosley, on May 16, 1986, at page 13362 of Debates, ruled that the threat or attempt to intimidate could not be hypothetical, but that it must be real or have occurred. I have a whole bus of passengers who witnessed this whole incident.On March 24, 1994, at page 2705 of Debates, Mr. Speaker Parent said: Threats of blackmail or intimidation of a member of Parliament should never be taken lightly. When such occurs, the very essence of free speech is undermined. Without the guarantee of freedom of speech, no member of Parliament can do his duty as expected. This attempt to intimidate me was directly linked to what I said in the House earlier in the day, and that, Mr. Speaker, should be grounds enough to warrant a favourable ruling for a question of privilege.Hiding behind a prime minister who claims to be a feminist does not give the member the right to intimidate another member of the same House of another party. Female members of all three parties were on the bus. They witnessed everything he did and how he intimidated me. Therefore, I reserve the right for a question of privilege with proper notice.
Mr. Speaker, what I can say to the member opposite is: wrong again.What happened here is that I disclosed all of my assets, and in fact there was an administrative error that we satisfied the commissioner with the $200 fine I paid. We are trying to work to help Canadians and not play the games that the members opposite are trying to play, because we know that was what we were elected to do. For all of those Canadians who looked at what we announced last week, the level of growth our country is seeing, and the improvements we are going to make in the Canada child benefit and the working income tax benefit, we are going to tell them that we are working for them.
Mr. Speaker, Canada's big city mayors have sounded the alarm. One in five renters spend more than half their income on housing, and 1.5 million families cannot find affordable housing.In Montreal, 25,000 families are on the waiting list for social housing, and in Toronto, 58,000 community housing units are in need of immediate repair.As the minister prepares to announce the details of his housing strategy, will he commit to investing the funding necessary to maintain and expand social housing stock?
Mr. Speaker, marijuana growers in my riding of KootenayColumbia have formed a co-op to advance their rights. They are concerned that the government will not license growers who farm outdoors and that licensing will go only to large corporate indoor growers. Indeed, Liberals on the health committee already voted down an NDP motion to allow provinces to develop production regimes that would support local economies.As the government moves to legalize the recreational use of cannabis, will it stand with and support economically important, small-scale outdoor farmers across Canada and ensure that they have a future, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, to join the treaty, we would first have to respect it.Experts have testified to the serious problems in the bill to implement the Arms Trade Treaty. Two detailed reports have been issued that insist that the government's Bill C-47 does not reflect either the spirit or the letter of the treaty. Nothing in the bill would prevent future arms deals with human rights abusers.I ask the minister again. Will the government amend the bill or withdraw it and start over?
Mr. Speaker, Parks Canada primarily exhibits the objects under its care at Parks Canada-administered national parks and national historic sites in every province and territory.In 2012, Parks Canada decided to build a purpose-built collection facility to ensure the sustainable care and management of the collection not currently on display throughout Canada. There are approximately 31 million artifacts under Parks Canada's care, and 60% of the collection is under threat due to inappropriate environmental storage conditions and lack of appropriate security.We are working to ensure the protection and preservation of the collection and its display throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, our strategy is to continue improving the lives of Canadian families and the middle class across the country. That is what matters. That is why we introduced the Canada child benefit, which makes life better for 300,000 children. That is why we improved the working income tax benefit for Canadians who are seriously struggling. We will continue to work for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, that minister hid an offshore company in France, and then he hid $20 million of Morneau Shepell shares from Canadians. Now that Canadians know he held those shares, because of investigative journalism and not because of his transparency, he has admitted that it was not the right thing to do, has sold those shares, and is now saying he will give back the ill-gotten gains. We need to know what other inappropriate investments the minister might be hiding in his holding companies. Why does he not tell us what is in those companies?
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the Liberals are centralists. They centralized decision-making on regional economic development in Toronto, and they centralized political decision-making on issues such as the elimination of the political lieutenant for Quebec in Ottawa. They are now preparing to centralize the arts by transferring a wide range of artifacts from Quebec City, the bastion of the Canadian francophonie, to the nation's capital.Will the member for Québec promise us that he will fight in cabinet to reverse this decision?
Mr. Speaker, our position on the issue has always been clear. We will always promote and protect rights and freedoms because we believe in the importance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not for the state to say what a person can or cannot wear.We are currently examining the application of the law. I thank my colleagues for their support on this issue.
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?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I spoke with a member of the opposition. He told me that it was not personal, that what happens here in the House is just a game. For us, it is not a game. It is really important to Canadians. We know that for the 300,000 children lifted out of poverty, it is intensely personal. We will continue to work with Canadians to improve the Canada's situation. That is our goal.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the issue of contradictory information given to members regarding the number of cabinet ministers who are currently using a conflict of interest loophole to avoid divesting personal investments or putting them in a blind trust. This contradictory information has been provided by an officer of Parliament, the Ethics Commissioner, and by the Prime Minister. The Ethics Commissioner has said that a number of Liberal cabinet ministers hold controlled assets indirectly, but the Prime Minister contends that only the finance minister does and that he is now in the process of selling shares in Morneau Shepell and setting up a blind trust in the meantime. When pressed to clarify if the Prime Minister was correct in his assertion that the Minister of Finance is the lone minister exploiting a loophole, Ms. Dawson's office confirmed via an email from her spokesperson, Jocelyne Brisebois, which states: The Office still maintains that there are fewer than five ministers who have controlled assets and no we were not wrong about the information provided in our statement to you. We can say fewer than five ministers, including [the finance minister]. That is, she says the commissioner's office was not wrong.However, on Tuesday, the Prime Minister insisted in the Commons that the finance minister is the only one of his 30 ministers who is currently exploiting this loophole. On page 111 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May, it states that, The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.On February 1, 2002, the Speaker then ruled on a matter in regard to the former minister of national defence: The hon. member for PortageLisgar alleged that the Minister of National Defence deliberately misled the House as to when he knew that prisoners taken by Canadian JTF2 troops in Afghanistan had been handed over to the Americans. In support of that allegation, he cited the minister's responses in question period on two successive days... The Speaker considered the matter and found there was a prima facie question of privilege. He said: The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House. The authorities to which Speaker Milliken was referring include but are not limited to the following. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 115, Misleading a Minister or a Member has also been considered a form of obstruction and thus a prima facie breach of privilege.When the Speaker, in 2002, accepted the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House, he stated that Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation. The Speaker then referred to the first edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 67: There are...affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges...the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; [or that] obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties... The Speaker went on to say: On the basis of the arguments presented by hon. members and in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. I therefore invite the hon. member for PortageLisgar to move his motion. On February 17, 2011, the member for ScarboroughGuildwood and other members argued that a minister had made statements in committee that were different from those made in the House or provided to the House in written form. These members argued that the material available showed that contradictory information had been provided. As a result, they argued that this demonstrated that the minister deliberately misled the House and that as such a prima facie case of privilege existed.In a ruling of March 9, 2011, the Speaker then pointed out: ...when asked who inserted the word not in the assessment of the KAIROS funding application, in testimony [before the committee] the minister twice replied that she did not know. In a February 14 statement to the House, while she did not indicate that she knew who inserted the word not, the minister addressed this matter by stating that the not was inserted at her direction. At the very least, it can be said that this has caused confusion. The minister has acknowledged this, and has characterized her own handling of the matter as unfortunate. Yet as is evident from hearing the various interventions that have been made since then, the confusion persists. As the member for ScarboroughRouge River told the House, this has confused me. It has confused Parliament. It has confused us in our exercise of holding the government to account, whether it is the Privy Council, whether it is the minister, whether it is public officials; we cannot do our job when there is that type of confusion. In the case raised on February 17, 2011, the contradictory information involved information provided to a committee and information provided to the House. In this case, we have information provided to the House that is contradictory to information provided by an officer of Parliament.On page 222 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, sixth edition, it states that Committees are regarded as creatures of the House.The House of Commons publication Committees Practical Guide states that committees are central to the operations of the House of Commons and allow for detailed examination of complex matters, which offers an opportunity for members to hear from Canadians and experts on topics of national concern and to have these representations placed on the public record. They provide a means for members to probe into the details of policies and programs, thereby further developing an expertise in certain areas. The Privy Council Office, and some governmental documents, refers to the officers of Parliament as Agents of Parliament, thereby emphasizing that they carry out work for Parliament and are responsible to Parliament, and as a means of distinguishing them from other officers and officials of Parliament. It also emphasizes their independence from the government of the day. These officers of Parliament carry out duties assigned by statute, and report to one or both of the Senate and House of Commons. The individuals appointed to these offices perform work on behalf of Parliament, and report to the chambers, usually through the Speakers. I argue that information flowing from an officer of Parliament holds as much weight as information flowing from a standing committee, and when this information is contradictory and confuses Parliament, as it has, there is a need to direct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to look at this in the guise of a breach of privilege. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner issued a statement today that said: The Globe and Mail reported this morning that the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is at odds with the Prime Minister over how many cabinet ministers currently hold controlled assets indirectly. This is, in fact, not the case. The Office did not wish to give an exact number when asked how many cabinet ministers indirectly hold controlled assets. The Office indicated fewer than five, giving a general sense of an upper limit to the number, meaning it could be one, two, three or four. This does not clarify anything, and it certainly confuses the issues further. I ask that you find a prima facie question of privilege here. I am prepared to move the proper motion to allow the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to get to the bottom of this matter.If you have any doubts, Mr. Speaker, I refer you to a ruling given on March 21, 1978, at page 3,975 of Debates, which is also referred to in Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, at page 227, where Speaker Jerome quoted a British procedure committee report of 1967, which states in part: ...the Speaker should ask himself [I am sure he meant to say himself or herself], when he has to decide whether to grant precedence over other public business to a motion which a Member who has complained of some act or conduct as constituting a breach of privilege desires to move, should be notdo I consider that, assuming that the facts are as stated, the act or conduct constitutes a breach of privilege, but could it reasonably be held to be a breach of privilege, or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should, in my view, leave it to the House. Mr. Speaker, I submit this matter to your wise judgment.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will not be playing games. We will focus on Canadians.For the member for ReginaQu'Appelle, we know that for the 16,090 children who have received the Canada child benefit, an average of $700 per family, it is not a game. It is helping their families. That is what we are working to do, and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I was saddened to read today that the leader of the official opposition has adopted Stephen Harper's approach to the opioid crisis. He is proposing that people with addiction issues should be arrested and incarcerated instead of being provided the help they need to stay alive and work toward a healthy future. The fact that the Conservatives want to reinstate Stephen Harper's failed strategy is irresponsible. People with addiction issues need help, not incarceration.Will the Minister of Health please update this House on her efforts to address the opioid crisis and provide needed support
Mr. Speaker, I know the finance minister is getting irritated by the process of accountability around this place, but he did not reveal all of his assets to the Ethics Commissioner; he kept hidden his offshore company in France. That is why she found him in violation of the law and required that he pay a punitive fine. Now he is hiding other assets within different holding companies. He could make these questions go away if he would simply tell Canadians what he is hiding in his vast network of numbered companies and trust funds.
Mr. Speaker, the minister is absolutely right. Canadians' trust is not a game. It is to be safeguarded, but right now, the minister is undermining it. For the past three weeks, the Prime Minister has gone on ad nauseam about how he trusts the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Now that the commissioner is saying there are two, three, or maybe four ministers playing the same game as this minister and hiding their assets from Canadians, all of a sudden the Prime Minister is saying she is wrong.My question is simple. Was the Minister of Finance actually in conflict of interest? When did the Prime Minister know about it?
Mr. Speaker, we know on this side of the House that some of the members of the opposition have a tough time counting.What we know is that the number two is less than the number five. What we can say is that there are two: one member who divested all of the assets 18 months ago and another member, me, who has divested his assets most recently. It is quite clear. It is up there on the website to see.We will continue to work with Canadians and not play these games.
Mr. Speaker, if I am wrong, then so too must be the Ethics Commissioner who fined the finance minister for not disclosing his assets. Is that some kind of a compliance fine that she issued him? My last question for the finance minister would be that if he actually if he did disclose his assets for the past few years, will he be asking for his $200 back?
Time.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told the House yesterday that Liberals trust and honour the work of the Ethics Commissioner. The Prime Minister has been telling us all week to trust the Ethics Commissioner. Now the Prime Minister's Office is telling us she is wrong about the number of Liberal ministers using conflict loopholes. We trust the Ethics Commissioner. Just how many ministers have gamed the spirit of the Conflict of Interest Act?
Mr. Speaker, the answer is nothing. The answer is that I have exposed all of my assets to the Ethics Commissioner.What I can say for the record
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the finance minister said that our deputy leader cannot count, when in fact he is the one who is 100% over his promised deficit levels. He said that others do not know what assets are, when he is the one who just forgot to report his asset, an offshore company in France, to the Ethics Commissioner. Instead of lashing out at others, why does the finance minister not just let go of all the secrets and tell Canadians what he is hiding in all of his holding companies?
Mr. Speaker, to repeat, we have a process in this House that we work with the Ethics Commissioner so that we can expose all of our assets to her and that is in fact what I have done. In terms of disclosure, 100% disclosure is the highest number we can get. That is what I have done. That allowed her to give me recommendations on what we should do to ensure that we do not have conflicts of interest. That is what we expect all 338 members of this House to do. We will continue to respect the Ethics Commissioner. We will continue to work on behalf of Canadians, which is what we were elected to do.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader if she could please tell us what business is happening for the rest of this week and next week before we go back for our Remembrance Day ceremonies.
Mr. Speaker, this morning we started second reading debate on Bill C-63, the budget implementation act. We will continue debate on this legislation this afternoon.Tomorrow we will commence second reading debate of Bill S-5, concerning amendments to the Tobacco Act.On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of next week, we shall continue with debate on the budget bill. Last Thursday I indicated to the House that we would allot four days of debate at second reading, which means we would expect the vote to send the bill to committee to take place on Wednesday evening. I would like to thank opposition House leaders for their co-operation in finding agreement on this timeline.On Thursday, we will resume debate on Bill C-45 on cannabis, and hope to conclude the debate at report stage. We will also be working to pass Bill C-17 on the Yukon before the next constituency week.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-47 on the Arms Trade Treaty has numerous flaws. For instance, it does not impose any firm legal limits on the authority of the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding the approval of arms exports. Furthermore, it does not cover exports to the U.S., which account for 50% of our arms exports.Experts who appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development talked about the serious concerns they have.Will the government agree to amend the bill, or even better, withdraw it and start over?
Mr. Speaker, exactly no one in first nation communities believes what the minister just said. Liberals seem to have invented a whole new game. It is called Ethics Bingo. How many Liberals have secret numbered companies they have not told Canadians about? Is it one? Yes, there is one. Is it two? Oh yes, at least two. Is it three? Tell me when I get to the right one and we can all yell bingo together. Enough with the games. Here are the Prime Minister's pre-end zone instructions to his ministers: ...you must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality...and the arrangement of your private affairs should bear the closest public scrutiny. When are they actually going to live up to those words, or are they just meaningless words written on paper?
Mr. Speaker, no one here thinks that it is a game to expect ministers to be held accountable, to be open, and transparent. However, there are some ministers who have been playing a game. It was called Hide the assets. In the case of the finance minister, it lasted two years. All that the opposition wants to know and all that Canadians want to know is who are the ministers who are using similar loopholes, how many are there, and when did the Prime Minister know this was going on?
Mr. Speaker, who is telling the truth, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner or the Prime Minister? I do not trust the Prime Minister, so I will go with the commissioner, as the Prime Minister has asked us to do every time a Liberal scandal has erupted over the past two years. However, we see through the Prime Minister, who is using the commissioner to distract from the real problem, namely the Minister of Finance and all his cover-ups.Why is he defending the indefensible? What is the Minister of Finance hiding in his numbered companies?
Mr. Speaker, since the finance minister has been exposed for hiding his assets in numerous multi-numbered companies, the Ethics Commissioner has stated that there are up to five other ministers who may be doing exactly the same thing.There is an unnamed senior government official who has decided to refute these claims, suggesting that the claims are actually wrong and her office is not correct in what it is saying.I would like to know this. The minister talks about trusting the Ethics Commissioner. Is there a senior government official over there who will actually say that there is no other minister in the same position he put himself in?
Mr. Speaker, I would be happy if the minister could tell me how I am wrong. Am I wrong when I say that the minister hid his assets for two years? Is the Ethics Commissioner wrong when she says there is more than one minister, but fewer than five? Are Canadians wrong to expect a little bit better from this finance minister and this Prime Minister?Once again, simple questions deserve simple answers. Who are the other ministers that are using the same loophole the finance minister used?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in this chamber, I had a member of the opposition come over to tell me not to take it personally because what happens here is just a game. For our government it is absolutely not a game. We are working to improve the lives of Canadians. For those 300,000 children who are being lifted out of poverty, for their parents, it is intensely personal. They care about our country and they care about their families.We will not play the games of the opposition. We are going to work on behalf of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the member seems to have some trouble with numbers. What I can say is that two is less than five. Those are the numbers. What we can say is that we want to continue working with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner so that our government can be certain that it does not have conflicts of interest. That will continue to be our approach. We will work with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That is the government's method.
It is actually laughable, Mr. Speaker, to hear the finance minister talking about counting, because the thing he has been counting since he became the finance minister is the mountain of cash that he has made off Morneau Shepell shares and dividends. The Prime Minister does have a problem. He either agrees that the Ethics Commissioner is right that the finance minister broke the law, or he disagrees with her and says everything is fine. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot suck and blow at the same time. The finance minister has been found guilty and fined by the Ethics Commissioner. How could the finance minister betray the trust of Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, it has been exactly one year since Parliament ordered the Liberal government to stop defying the Human Rights Tribunal and immediately flow that $155-million shortfall on child welfare. The government refused, saying that it would be like throwing confetti. No, it is about protecting children like 12-year-old Amy Owen, who, before she died wrote on Facebook, I am just a kid and my life is a nightmare.To the minister, stop defending the same feeble funding formula for child welfare established by Stephen Harper. Why will the minister refuse to flow that money that was ordered by the Parliament of Canada?
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister thinks he can make difficult questions about his secrets go away by lashing out personally against those asking those questions. Earlier today he made belittling comments about our deputy leader and others who are simply doing their jobs. The only thing that will make these questions go away is for the minister to finally answer them. The minister was hiding $20 million of Morneau Shepell shares in only one of his holding companies. Can he please tell us what else he is hiding in his other holding companies?
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister did not go further. He was fined by the Ethics Commissioner for breaking the rules. Instead of owning up to it, he is clearly irritated and throwing insults. I think the finance minister may need a little break at his French villa over the next few weeks.Seriously, this is a very serious issue when the Minister of Finance is hiding assets. I have a simple question. No insults, please. What else is the finance minister hiding in his other numbered companies?
That is coming from the party of the sponsorship scandal, Mr. Speaker. The Information Commissioner dropped a bombshell yesterday. The Liberals' new no access to information bill, Bill C-58, will make things even worse than they were under Stephen Harper and Jean Chrétien. Ethics, cash for access, and open government were all promises made, and all promises that were broken. From the sponsorship scandal to missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls, all of this came to light through access to information.Will the minister listen to civil society, immigration groups, and first nations, and fix this bad bill?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his work and his tireless efforts in this matter. Like him, I was extremely disappointed yesterday when I heard the opposition leader's outdated belief. Unlike the Conservatives, our government is actually supporting law enforcement where it matters. Rather than prosecuting those with mental health and addiction issues, we are disrupting illegal drugs at the border and diverting people out of the criminal justice system.With Bill C-37 and C-224, our government is taking a compassionate, evidence-based approach to reduce barriers to treatment and encourage innovative measures to prevent overdoses and save lives.
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has placed the Ethics Commissioner in an impossible position, first by withholding information from the commissioner, then by claiming that she supported everything he did, but she fined him for not complying with the act. Instead of insulting MPs and insinuating that female elected representatives cannot do math, why does the finance minister not just come clean and answer the questions?
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is wrong, and he knows he is wrong. I disclosed all of my assets to the Ethics Commissioner and will continue to work with her. We will not play the games they are playing. We will continue to work with Canadians.
Shame on you, Bill, you're being dishonest. You're being very dishonest.