Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 361 - 420 of 464
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-19 12:52 [p.2417]
Mr. Speaker, I have a cold, so I might lose my voice, but that does not mean I am not tremendously interested in the debate we are having today.
I am obviously pleased to rise today to join with some of my colleagues in the Liberal caucus who have spoken previously to explain to the House and to Canadians why we are opposing what we think is a frivolous and gratuitous motion.
We are proud to oppose the motion. We recognize its cynical origins, and we recognize the attempt to distract Canadians and parliamentarians from issues that we think concern the vast majority of Canadians. It is an attempt to fabricate a circumstance around one of our colleagues, which we believe obviously has no merit.
During my speech, I intend to demonstrate to the House that not only has the Minister of Justice acted honourably, ethically, and in a manner beyond reproach, but I will also, I hope, be able to point out that many current and former members of the other parties in this House could in fact learn enormously from her outstanding actions. I will show how in a few short months, Canadians have witnessed how different and improved things can be when they have a government that truly believes in openness and transparency.
Every action that this government has taken is based upon the idea that as an institution, whether it is a government or Parliament, we can and must do better.
Unfortunately, instead of moving ahead with us on this particular approach, the opposition has chosen to spend today debating a motion which, in our view, as I said, has extremely limited merit. It is designed to fabricate an issue where in fact no issue exists.
Conservatives could have decided to debate today one of the numerous issues that continue to worry Canadians, issues which they have ignored in a decade in government. A few examples might be the weak economic growth that the previous government saw, or Canadians' eroding ability to ensure a secure retirement, or a lack of diversification in our economy, or the increasing unfairness in various government programs such as employment insurance, or a failed relationship with indigenous peoples.
Instead, they want to spend today talking about our colleague, the Minister of Justice, so let us do exactly that.
Today, we are talking about integrity, transparency, and honesty. These are character traits that perfectly describe the Minister of Justice. These principles are at the heart of a good government. They form the foundation on which we will continue to rebuild the relationship of trust between elected members and voters. These are the principles that guide the actions of the government and the actions of our colleague, the Minister of Justice.
When we formed government, the Prime Minister made this clear to all members of cabinet as well as our colleagues in the Liberal caucus.
After a decade where Conservatives found themselves repeatedly before the courts, where insiders close to the former prime minister were hiding, for example, in Panama, fighting extradition, and where a $90,000-payoff to a sitting senator was simply seen as business as usual in the Prime Minister's Office, we believed that things needed to change.
Mr. Speaker, you will remember this, as you were in the previous Parliament. When caught, the former government would deny the charges, obfuscate the facts, and sometimes mislead Canadians.
I heard in my constituency, and colleagues on all sides of this House heard it in theirs, in community after community, that the previous government lacked transparency.
I am happy to say, thanks to the Prime Minister, these dark days are over and have given way, as we see outside Parliament today, to a very sunny way. We have an open and transparent government that believes in putting its trust in Canadians as a way to have Canadians better trust their government.
I know that everyone here agrees. We must never give Canadians a reason to distrust their government. They will not always like what we do, and that is understandable. Some will not support every one of the government's decisions. That is okay. Diverging ideas and opinions are what make our democracy great because they encourage people with different points of view to work together to reach a consensus.
However, disagreeing with some decisions is quite different from not trusting the government. Canadians should not think that the government is hiding things from them or not listening to them. Worse yet, they should not think that their elected representatives are playing by a different set of rules than the rest of society. This is a fundamental principle for our government.
As the Prime Minister said, Canadians do not expect us to be perfect. They expect us to be honest, open, and sincere in our efforts to serve the public interest. That is where the Prime Minister set the bar, and we must accept nothing less.
This is exactly what the Minister of Justice has done. Unlike in the previous government, she proactively sought the advice of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That is what a responsible government does. The member for St. Albert—Edmonton knows this because when he wrote to that commissioner, she responded to him in writing—it was a three-page letter—and indicated that the justice minister had followed every rule outlined in the applicable legislation.
That is an important difference between how the previous government acted then and how we have chosen to act now. The Conservatives would usually wait until the commissioner found a wrongdoing, then deny and obfuscate the circumstance and, in fact. in some cases try to mislead investigations.
We seek to proactively disclose these concerns to the commissioner. Then we are guided by her advice. That is exactly what the Minister of Justice did, and exactly what the government will continue to do.
Publishing the ministerial mandate letters in November 2015 was a tangible reflection of our commitment. For the first time in Canadian history, a prime minister clearly and publicly articulated exactly what he expected of his ministers. These expectations addressed not only what the ministers should be doing, but also how they should do it. These letters were a blueprint for taking action on a broad scale. They included investing in infrastructure, restoring Canada's constructive leadership in the world, and renewing the nation-to-nation relationship with our indigenous peoples.
However, opposition members know that our economic policy of growing the middle class is extremely popular with Canadians, and exactly the suite of economic policies that Canadians expect. They know that asking the top 1% to do a little more in order to lower taxes on the middle class is more than fair. The Conservatives and the New Democrats, much to our surprise, in the election opposed programs like the Canada child benefit, an economic measure which would help nine out of every ten Canadian families by giving them a more generous tax-free monthly cheque.
They know the importance of investing in crucial infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and transit, green infrastructure and social infrastructure. Because the opposition of the Conservatives to these measures is not resonating with Canadians, they find the need to fabricate an issue involving the justice minister.
Unfortunately for the opposition, but thankfully for the justice minister and for Canadians, all of the rules in this circumstance were followed. The minister met the very high expectations of the Prime Minister, as well as her obligations under the code applying to members of Parliament and the Conflict of Interest Act, which applies to public office-holders, ministers being principal among them.
It is a very old method, sadly, that the Conservatives have spent a decade in protecting. When they cannot win an argument with respect to the substance, they turn to personal attacks and fabricate allegations. We do not have to go very far to find such examples. We can easily remember the numerous spokespeople in the former Conservative government, when they would answer a question in the House of Commons time and again by simply indicating a circumstance that had absolutely nothing to do with the question. Uninterested in the substance of the question, the previous government had one responsibility; that was to ignore the questions posed and respond with a series of baseless and fabricated allegations, something we see at the heart of today's motion.
In addition to the mandate letters published by the government, there is another worthwhile document recognized by the House. Some of my colleagues have already mentioned it, and it deserves close consideration.
I am referring to “Open and Accountable Government”, which the Prime Minister released in November 2015. The title says it all. It is an ambitious and comprehensive document.
I regard that document as a ministerial game plan, a game plan that the minister has always followed in a very responsible manner, I would say before the House.
“Open and Accountable Government” describes what is generally expected of ministers and their staff in terms of their conduct. It provides a framework for establishing an ethical government. Nothing is more important to Canadians.
On the subject of public office holders, the document states:
...they have an obligation to perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny.
It also states:
Public office holders, in fulfilling their official duties and functions, shall [as the Minister of Justice did] make decisions in the public interest and with regard to the merits of each case.
This is exactly what the Minister of Justice has done and what she will continue to do. I know my colleagues across the aisle like to fabricate a series of accusations and allegations. Canadians understand that these have no merit. They know that at all times the Minister of Justice followed these rules in a rigorous way and proactively sought the advice of the independent officers of Parliament, who are, in fact, given the responsibility of enforcing those rules and applying them. In the case of a disagreement between an opposition member of the House and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, we will always defer to the judgment of the commissioner in all cases.
Openness and transparency for our government is more than a slogan. One example, which we find rather disturbing, is the opposition's continued request to have a list of who attended a particular event in question. The opposition knows full well that the names will, indeed, be made public. As per the Canada Elections Act, donations of over $200 are disclosed and made public by political parties on the Elections Canada website and this information is shared with all Canadians.
These are rules of which we are very proud. The opposition knows full well that these rules apply to the particular event in question and will always apply to events where members of Parliament raise money for political parties or local riding associations. Canadians deserve to know that politicians keep their best interests in mind at all times and will not be swayed by particular funding from particular groups. That is why this transparency is so important.
Unfortunately, that is a principle that some members of the Conservative Party have had considerable trouble in following. We remember when the former prime minister, the current member for Calgary Heritage, ran for the leadership of the then Reform Party. He kept secret the source of $900,000 he raised in that leadership campaign. When that member ran for the leadership of the new Conservative Party, the biggest donors to his $2 million leadership campaign were quickly hidden by the Conservative Party. If it had nothing to hide, we would have assumed this information should properly have been made public. The fact that it has not done so, has led Canadians to question exactly why. The Conservatives refused to share this information with Canadians and we will never know what kind of funding may have motivated the former prime minister in some of the decisions his government made.
In closing, I am proud to be able to say that our colleague, the Minister of Justice, is also a friend. She is doing a tremendous job as the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada. Her conduct has always been exemplary.
The impressive record of our colleague, the Minister of Justice, of public service, as a lawyer, as a prosecutor, as an elected indigenous leader is something we believe should inspire all Canadians.
The Conservatives who brought this motion forward, in an attempt to distract from other issues that we think are more important to Canadians, have themselves a very difficult laundry list of Elections Act violations and ethical breaches.
In question period in previous weeks, I referred to some of the more shocking examples, where Canadians saw the Conservative Party plead guilty in the in-and-out scheme, for example, and pay a $250,000 fine as a political party for not having respected basic Elections Act provisions, which determine spending limits for a national party and a local campaign. People will remember the Conservatives attacked Elections Canada and they attacked the commissioner. When Parliament adjourned one spring and when nobody was looking, on a Friday, they plead guilty and paid a $250,000 fine as a national party for not having followed the elections rules.
There are other spectacular examples, such as the former prime minister's parliamentary secretary being led out in leg irons and handcuffs to a van, and then taken to jail for problems with election financing. I think that might have acted as a brake on the Conservative Party's enthusiasm to fabricate allegations against hon. members of the House and members of the cabinet, who follow the rules and serve Canadians.
This is why when this frivolous motion comes to a vote, we look forward to the House defeating it.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-19 13:10 [p.2419]
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to scandalize my friend from Moose Jaw, but I can assure him that in fact in our case, in our party, some people do pay $500 to come to events where backbench MPs are featured as guest speakers.
I hosted an event in my riding a year or two ago, and we were then the third party in opposition. I was the guest speaker at my event. I think it was $500 or it may have been $750 a person. It was to get ready for the election campaign. This is how we raise money in constituencies. In all circumstances, we followed the law and the requirements. Therefore, I do not want to disappoint my colleague, but we have members of Parliament, even as the third party in opposition, who are able to attract that kind of support at fundraising events, and we are proud of that.
My colleague said that he could assure us that this kind of event would not have happened in the previous government. However, on February 12, 2015, at the Sutton Place Hotel in Edmonton, the current member for St. Albert—Edmonton hosted a fundraiser where the special guest was the then minister of health, who is now the leader of the opposition. Therefore, a little over a year ago, a very similar event took place. I do not know if there were well-heeled lawyers there, but it was an exclusive event at the posh Sutton Place Hotel with the minister of health. Maybe my colleague has been there.
However, it is interesting that on the Facebook page, the minister of Health and the member for St. Albert—Edmonton said that the minister of health was there simply as the member of Parliament for Edmonton—Spruce Grove. The hypocrisy is a little shocking.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-19 13:13 [p.2420]
Mr. Speaker, I disagree a little with the member's statement that the Minister of Justice attendance at a fundraiser, as happens with many members of Parliament on all sides of the House, necessarily leads to the impression of a conflict of interest. What removes the impression of a conflict of interest and what should reassure Canadians is that all of the rules that are public and well known were followed in this case, including the disclosure of all of those who attended this event.
The reason we have severe penalties for people who do not properly disclose political donations—and the former Conservative member for Peterborough saw exactly what happens when we do not follow those rules—is to reassure Canadians. Events like this are a necessary part of the democratic process. Individuals make personal donations, unlike the case with the NDP, which had to pay back union donations that were received inappropriately at one of their conventions. Those types of donations are no longer possible. These are individuals who donate a certain amount of money personally.
All of this disclosure comes out according to law and publicly, and that is what, in our view, makes this is a very normal, very routine part of democracy. The Minister of Justice, in following all those rules, in fact did absolutely nothing wrong, and to suggest that she left an appearance of conflict of interest is extremely disingenuous.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-19 13:16 [p.2420]
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister identified yet another example that we think deeply disturbed Canadians. That circumstance involved the former minister of transport, who in a previous capacity was involved in a governmental organization. People were appointed to various government agencies, and we do not know if in fact there was an understanding that when people got appointed to a particular board, agency, or commission, they would of course make a contribution back to the Conservative Party.
A perfect example of the reason Canadians became so distrustful of the previous government was just outlined by my colleague. What we did with the open and accountable government mandate was to say that Canadians deserve to trust their government. We have a government that trusts Canadians and we think it is important for Canadians to be able to trust their government, and the only way that we can rebuild trust after 10 difficult years under the previous government is to be more open and more transparent, as the Minister of Justice has been in seeking the advice and guidance of the appropriate authorities before undertaking a particular course of action.
That is what ministers are doing, and that is exactly how we will erase the sad memory of the scandals in the previous Conservative government that were outlined by my colleague and bring Canadians to a better place in terms of confidence in public institutions.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-19 13:19 [p.2421]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe would certainly know that scandals do not do any government any good, if we look at the record of his government.
The previous minister of justice in my friend's party, when it was in government, attended fundraising events. This is not something that is unusual. There is this fake indignation: “Oh my God, some cabinet minister attended a fundraiser.” The fundraiser followed all the rules. It was designed to raise money for a political party, exactly as all parties in the House have done, according to law. We hope that has been the case. Certainly it has been in our case.
We see absolutely nothing inappropriate with the actions of the Minister of Justice. What we are concerned about is the case of my colleague from Red Deer and the event he organized in his riding with now-disgraced Senator Mike Duffy, where Senator Duffy apparently used taxpayers' money to attend a fundraiser in his constituency. Then public attention was drawn to this example of Senator Duffy, who Canadians know is facing 31 charges, including fraud of $5,000. We would not have thought he was the best guest to attend a constituency fundraising event, but my friend from Red Deer obviously did, because he invited Senator Duffy to his riding.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-19 14:35 [p.2433]
Mr. Speaker, I have to give my colleague credit for lumping together two or three different issues. He knows full well that the president of the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec asked Mr. Lalonde to step down from his volunteer duties on the board of directors. He also knows full well that the charges laid by the chief electoral officer of Quebec have nothing to do with Mr. Lalonde's role in the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-19 16:29 [p.2449]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting day a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-14 14:18 [p.2243]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite knows full well that we have absolutely nothing to hide.
The Prime Minister was very clear yesterday. It has never happened before, but he proactively disclosed information about his personal finances when he decided to run for the leadership of our party. The companies in question always paid all of the necessary taxes.
Obviously, when he became Prime Minister, his assets were placed in a trust, which is the appropriate thing to do.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-14 14:38 [p.2247]
Mr. Speaker, we have said on a number of times in the House, the minister contacted the Ethics Commissioner proactively to ask whether it was appropriate for her to attend that fundraising activity, as every member in the House of Commons does from time to time and as did ministers in the previous Conservative government from time to time. She received a confirmation that it was entirely appropriate for her to do so.
In fact, the Ethics Commissioner, in a three-page letter, confirmed that to my hon. colleague who asked the Ethics Commissioner that exact question. We consider this matter closed. The member is obviously having a struggle ending the matter.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-14 14:38 [p.2247]
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows full well the minister did no such thing. He keeps referring to this supposed secret fundraiser. Just because he repeats these exaggerated lines does not make them true. A fundraiser where every donation is disclosed on the Internet is hardly a secret fundraiser. It is something that members opposite have done many times over.
We will continue to respect all of the provisions of the Prime Minister's open and accountable government code, as well as the Conflict of Interest Act and any other related provisions.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-14 14:40 [p.2247]
Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. member keeps repeating these silly phrases like “pay-to-play”. He is confusing his Saturday night at the arcade with a very legitimate fundraising activity—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-14 14:41 [p.2247]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Justice, has answered that question a number of times.
My colleague across the aisle knows very well that members in the House attend fundraising events from time to time, done entirely according to law. All of the donations are disclosed publicly, as is required by law.
The Minister of Justice did absolutely nothing different than the ministers in the previous government used to do. Every member on this side of the House respects the Elections Act and the Prime Minister's code of conduct, and will always continue to do so. That is something the Conservatives had considerable trouble doing when they were in government.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-14 14:54 [p.2250]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
It is too bad that his parliamentary leader is not in the House, since he could have sent—
Some hon members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Dominic Leblanc: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I should not have said that.
It is too bad that my colleague opposite does not know that I made that offer yesterday at the House leaders meeting. We completely agree that we should ensure that as many members as possible have a chance to rise in this House to speak to this important issue.
I would be happy to work with—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-14 15:09 [p.2252]
Mr. Speaker, I have good news. I have no documents to table, and thus there is no need to worry.
This afternoon will conclude the fourth and final day of the budget debate.
Tomorrow we will commence second reading of Bill C-10, the Air Canada legislation, and continue that debate on Monday.
Next week, we will have opposition days on Tuesday and Thursday. On Wednesday, we will begin debate on Bill C-14 on medical assistance in dying, introduced this morning by my colleague, the Minister of Justice.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-13 14:37 [p.2165]
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member who just asked the question should talk to his colleague for St. Albert—Edmonton, who, in fact, wrote a letter to the Ethics Commissioner with many of the same frivolous allegations. He received a three-page letter from the Ethics Commissioner, dated April 13, and the paragraph that I know everyone wants to hear reads as follows:
Based on the information available in the case, the fundraising involved the Minister of Justice, section 16—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-13 14:38 [p.2165]
Mr. Speaker, the only person who is hiding appears to be the member who just asked that question. He knows very well that this is a series of fabricated allegations that his colleague sent to the Ethics Commissioner. Today the Ethics Commissioner confirmed that those allegations have no merit and no basis.
Why can the member not be satisfied with the independent opinion of the Ethics Commissioner that this House asked to look into these kinds of matters?
I have more faith in her judgment than in his.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-13 14:39 [p.2165]
Mr. Speaker, I think what Canadians are wondering is when that member will tone down the feigned indignation, especially given the fact that he got a three-page, precise answer in writing from the Ethics Commissioner, which concluded that the fake complaint he made had no merit.
The members opposite love to table documents in the House. They should stay tuned. Maybe after question period I will ask for consent to table the letter the Ethics Commissioner sent to that member.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-13 14:40 [p.2165]
Mr. Speaker, let me try this again. That particular member made up a series of fake allegations and used his parliamentary immunity to make a whole series of allegations that he does not have the guts to go 25 metres out and say in front of a television camera.
He wrote a letter to the independent Ethics Commissioner with all these fake allegations, and she wrote back to him and said that at all times the minister followed the act and her responsibilities under the code.
He should be ashamed to keep asking those ridiculous questions.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-13 14:42 [p.2165]
Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. member may want to ask her colleague from St. Albert.
The second-last paragraph on page 3 of the letter that the Ethics Commissioner sent him makes it clear that it is entirely appropriate for all members, including parliamentary secretaries and ministers, to solicit funds.
She knows there is no scandal here. She is trying to fabricate something, and we look forward perhaps to the next fake allegation that will follow in the next question.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-13 14:43 [p.2166]
Mr. Speaker, if my colleague from Lévis had taken the time to read the Canada Elections Act, he would be aware that the names of all attendees will be disclosed proactively in accordance with the law.
There is no secret here. It was not a secret fundraiser. The member may be thinking of former colleagues of his who are now in prison for inappropriate financial activities.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-13 15:25 [p.2173]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of the true icons of Canada's House of Commons and our Parliament, a person I am extremely proud to be able to call a friend, Ms. Audrey O'Brien.
Calling Audrey a trailblazer would be an understatement, as her passion, her integrity and discipline has defined a career that has been nothing short of admirable and inspiring.
Audrey started out as a committee clerk in 1976, as the Speaker just mentioned. Mr. Speaker, I was a bit surprised that you glossed over our friend's age. I obviously will not point out that our Prime Minister was five years old when Audrey started working here. She was always prepared to share her knowledge, and her presence and experience were tremendous assets to all members who had the honour of learning from her.
I was honoured to inform the House of Commons of Audrey's nomination as Clerk of the House in 2005, when I was the then parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, and again to move her nomination as Clerk Emerita and an Honorary Officer of the House of Commons with an entrée to the chamber and a well-deserved seat at the Table.
As many people know, Audrey was the first female Clerk of the House of Commons. Her work no doubt opened many doors for everyone who aspired to, one day, take on a role so important to Canadian democracy, a role that she has fulfilled with dignity and honour since 2005.
Audrey's name will continue to permeate this chamber for many years. There is a reason why so many people colloquially refer to the book she co-edited on the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, O'Brien and Bosc, as the bible of parliamentary procedure. God knows, many of us would still be lost and wandering around this place if it were not for her writings, her wise counsel, and the person who has served as deputy clerk and acting clerk since her departure some months ago.
To those who had the honour and the privilege of dealing with her on a daily basis, she quickly became a friend and confidante.
Always cheerful, respectful, wise, and fair, Audrey exemplifies the very best of service to Canada, to our democracy, and to Canadians.
I want to say to Audrey, on behalf of all members in the Liberal caucus, a big thank you for her wisdom and her advice over so many years. We wish her the best in her next step forward and look forward to seeing her in this chamber, and on the Hill in good health for many years to come.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-12 14:29 [p.2079]
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and all ministers in the government have, at all times, followed our obligations under the ethics code and under the Conflict of Interest Act. The Liberal Party respects the Canada Elections Act. All of this fundraising was done according to law. All of the donations are transparent and disclosed, according to law. It is something that every member of this House has done in order to win a seat in this House, and continues to do.
Ministers in the previous government also raised money for the Conservative Party and used to brag about it one day not so long ago.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-12 14:31 [p.2079]
Mr. Speaker, the only part of that question with which we agree is the incredible mandate that the Minister of Justice has been given by the Prime Minister: to reform our justice system and to clean up a number of messes left to this government by the previous government in terms of justice law and justice policy.
As I said, this fundraiser was done entirely according to the rules. All of the applicable Conflict of Interest Code ethical obligations and Canada Elections Act measures were followed. We will continue to do that.
The hon. member is trying to create a scandal where none exists.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-12 14:32 [p.2079]
Mr. Speaker, the cute phrases and the play on words do not change the basic facts.
All members of the House of Commons raise money according to law. All members on this side of the House respect the Canada Elections Act and the appropriate fundraising rules that apply. It is something that my colleague's party has had considerable trouble doing in the past. They, in fact, pleaded guilty and had to pay a $250,000 fine for a pay-to-play scheme to launder money in and out of riding associations. We have never done that on this side of the House.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-12 14:33 [p.2079]
Mr. Speaker, the only thing that hurts the credibility of members of the House is that kind of feigned indignation where a member tries to create a scandal where none exists.
On this side of the House, we are extremely proud to serve with the Minister of Justice. We are proud of her record of public service, her ethics, and her integrity. We will always stand with her.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-12 14:36 [p.2080]
Mr. Speaker, I have good news for my friend opposite.
The Ethics Commissioner advises ministers in both their roles as minister and as member of Parliament. That has always been the case. The minister spoke to the commissioner about both roles.
Furthermore, she complied with all the relevant rules. My colleague opposite wants to repeat the same accusations, hoping to create a scandal, but there is no scandal on this side of the House.
We will always abide by the law when it comes to election financing.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-11 14:26 [p.1994]
Mr. Speaker, my friend opposite is obviously struggling with a very basic concept. The Liberal Party raises money in accordance with all the rules under the Canada Elections Act.
In this case my colleague, Minister of Justice, proactively reached out to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to discuss this particular event, and she indicated that it was appropriate.
That is the ethical standard that this government has raised from the previous government that was before us.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-11 14:32 [p.1995]
Mr. Speaker, the feigned indignation in front is a little rich.
We have indicated at all times that the Liberal Party raises money in accordance with the provisions of the Canada Elections Act. As I have said on previous occasions, nobody on this side of the House has gone to prison for illegal fundraising, and that is something they are having trouble saying over there.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-11 14:33 [p.1996]
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we have nothing to hide.
The member knows full well that all of those donations are disclosed, according to law, every quarter. The member can spend the whole evening searching the Internet. Here is good news: it is coming to a computer near him.
While he is up asking questions, perhaps he should ask his colleague from Red Deer about fundraising activities when Senator Duffy went to his riding and, in fact, even threatened litigation with the riding association over that event.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-03-24 10:23 [p.1935]
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties in the House, and I believe if you seek it you should find unanimous consent for the following motion.
That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, immediately after Routine Proceedings concludes today, the Order of Business for the remainder of the sitting day shall be as follows: Government Orders until 11:00 a.m.; Statements by Members from 11:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m.; Oral Questions from 11:15 to 12:00 noon; Government Orders from 12:00 noon to 2:30 p.m.; after which the House shall adjourn until Monday, April 11, 2016, at 11:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-03-24 12:15 [p.1953]
Mr. Speaker, if colleagues are so inclined, I could perhaps table at the end of my answer to the Thursday question, this very incisive weekly business today. However, I will leave that to your judgment, Mr. Speaker.
Today, the House is debating Bill C-7, the RCMP labour relations act. I hope we will conclude second reading at the end of the day today.
As my friend noted, the House will adjourn for the Easter break and allow members to return to work in their constituencies.
When we return on April 11, the House will complete the four days of debate on the budget, April 11, 12, 13, and 14. I know colleagues will want to speak to the budget. Those will be designated as days to debate the budget.
I want to take this opportunity to wish you, Mr. Speaker, and Kelly a happy Easter. I also wish our colleagues and their families a happy Easter and a good break.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-03-23 14:23 [p.1931]
Mr. Speaker, I rise with a great deal of sadness, given the tragic news of the passing of our colleague Jim Hillyer. I want to add my voice to those of colleagues who have spoken, and express my sympathies to his wife and children.
We have had discussions among the parties, and it is my hope that we can dispose of two quick procedural matters before we adjourn the House.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: that notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, on Thursday, March 24, 2016, the House shall consider Bill C-7, an act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other acts and to provide for certain other measures at second reading, and when no member rises to speak or at the expiry of the time provided for government orders, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be deemed put and the motion for second reading of the bill be deemed adopted on division.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-03-23 14:24 [p.1931]
Mr. Speaker, I find it regrettable that on a day like today we are not able to get unanimous consent.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice:
That the House do now adjourn.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-03-22 10:04 [p.1871]
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development be the committee designated for the purposes of section 343 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-03-22 10:05 [p.1871]
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1, I move:
That the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development be the committee designated for the purposes of Section 343 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-03-22 14:49 [p.1910]
Mr. Speaker, what we have said many times in the House is that the Minister of Justice and all ministers, and in fact all reporting public office-holders, will be governed at all times by their responsibility in the Conflict of Interest Act and the code that applies to members of Parliament.
We take our advice on these issues from the independent Ethics Commissioner, and we will always follow that advice.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-03-22 14:50 [p.1910]
Mr. Speaker, the member does no service to members of the House, or anyone in public life, by making a series of false allegations. The Ethics Commissioner at no time has made reference to the Site C dam and any imagined conflict of interest that the member opposite is making up.
If the member had the courage of her convictions, she would step outside. There are a lot of cameras there today. She should feel free to make that same allegation outside.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-03-22 15:09 [p.1913]
Mr. Speaker, if we are in the business of fabricating points of order, I could perhaps find one, but I do not think it is necessary.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-03-21 14:57 [p.1818]
Mr. Speaker, members of the Conservative Party know well that there is a long-standing government policy, for security reasons, that prime ministers always use Royal Canadian Air Force aircraft for every purpose, including personal travel. As was the case with the previous prime ministers when travelling for personal reasons, the Prime Minister and members of his family reimbursed an economy airfare.
They also know that standard procedure requires, within three hours, the Prime Minister to be able to return to Canada in case of a national emergency. That policy existed under previous governments, and we are respecting that same policy today.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-03-10 15:08 [p.1716]
Mr. Speaker, perhaps there might be consent for me to table this very incisive statement that members are about to hear.
Today, we will continue our second reading debate of Bill C-6 on citizenship. Tomorrow, we will continue to discuss Bill C-2 on the middle-class tax cut. There have been discussions among several members, and I believe we will be able to conclude second reading debate tomorrow. Next week, as my colleague mentioned, we will be working very hard in our constituencies.
Monday, March 21 will be the final opposition day in this supply cycle.
On Tuesday, we will take up debate again on Bill C-6, until 4 p.m. I know that members on all sides are looking forward with great enthusiasm to the Minister of Finance presenting his budget at that time.
On Wednesday and Thursday of the week we are back, the House will have the two first days of the budget debate.
Finally, on a serious note, there have been discussions among the parties, and I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, one minister of the Crown be permitted to make a statement pursuant to Standing Order 31 on Friday, March 11, 2016.
The Speaker: Does the hon. minister have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-03-08 14:50 [p.1584]
Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister understands is the importance of raising the bar on accountability and transparency from the shabby record in front of us.
That is why when our government was elected we took unprecedented steps to bring more openness and more transparency to government, and that includes always abiding by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's advice. That is what ministers in this government have done and will continue to do.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-03-08 14:53 [p.1585]
Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the House before, at all times the Liberal Party has complied and will continue to comply with the election financing legislation.
It is somewhat ironic that members sitting on the other side raise people that do not respect election financing laws, because nobody on this side has left in leg irons.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-03-08 14:55 [p.1585]
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are very proud of what the Prime Minister and ministers will accomplish on the important state visit to Washington.
It is an unprecedented honour for Canada, and substantive files will be advanced. Job creation will be a priority on this side of the House. In discussions with the White House and with secretaries in the American administration, at all times we will keep the economic and social needs of Canadians at the forefront.
Drive-by smears about phony fundraising events, frankly, are not honourable in this House.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-03-08 14:56 [p.1585]
Mr. Speaker, Canadians will find it somewhat ironic that the other side of the House would be lecturing anybody about using government to advance partisan interests.
What we can say with respect to this particular event is that the member knows very well that no donation was required. This is a normal social media competition that all parties have done.
At all times, the Liberal Party and members on this side of the House respect election financing legislation, something that colleagues on the other side have had considerable trouble doing.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-03-07 14:45 [p.1503]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford for his question.
We recognize the importance of modernizing our institutions and making them accessible to everyone, including people with children. We must also provide people with better access to their MPs. They should not have to wait, as my colleague said, sometimes more than a month to meet us in our constituency offices. Our constituents know the important work we have to do within our communities, and it is time that our institutions reflected that.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-02-26 11:38 [p.1448]
Mr. Speaker, we will take advice on the appropriate ethical screens from the Ethics Commissioner. I can inform the House that the Minister of Justice and her husband have met with the Ethics Commissioner and she has confirmed that all of the appropriate and required compliance measures are in place, and the minister and her husband will follow them meticulously.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-02-26 11:39 [p.1448]
Mr. Speaker, only that member would find an ethical smokescreen on the Internet.
The Ethics Commissioner has in fact posted that all the compliance measures are in place. The minister will be following them.
Let me be clear, Dr. Raybould has 30 years of experience—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-02-26 11:40 [p.1448]
Mr. Speaker, I did know that. That is why I was referring to the minister's husband, Dr. Raybould, who has 30 years' experience and a Ph.D. from Cambridge in a very specific aspect of business. His business is entirely compliant with the minister's ethical obligations. The Ethics Commissioner has confirmed that, and that member should not be putting spurious accusations—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-02-26 11:41 [p.1448]
Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that appointments as heads of mission are subject to the appropriate controls from the Ethics Commissioner. Obviously, the ambassador would have ensured that all of his previous business arrangements are in compliance with his new role, and the Ethics Commissioner is the person whose advice we always follow on those matters.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-02-26 11:41 [p.1449]
Mr. Speaker, the idea that people on this side of the House have any lessons to take from the other side of the House with respect to following the conflict of interest regime is a bit rich.
What the member is obviously having trouble understanding is that the Conflict of Interest Act and the code that is applicable is applied by the independent Ethics Commissioner. If the Conservatives think there is a significant problem here, they are free to go and meet with the Ethics Commissioner or, in fact, file a formal complaint. The fact that they have not done so confirms that they know there is no material whatsoever, except to stand up at question period and make those accusations.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-02-25 14:48 [p.1398]
Mr. Speaker, I can confirm, on behalf of my colleague, that the Minister of Justice will meticulously follow all of the advice she is given by the Ethics Commissioner.
I am pleased to inform my colleagues that these measures are now in place and that she will follow them carefully, as she has always done.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-02-25 14:49 [p.1398]
Mr. Speaker, what would be helpful would be if the members opposite put an end to the drive-by smears.
What we have said from the beginning is that the Minister of Justice proactively raised this issue with the Ethics Commissioner, as someone of her high integrity should do. The Ethics Commissioner has now provided a structure and advice to avoid not only a conflict of interest but the appearance of a conflict of interest, and that is the advice she is always going to follow.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-02-25 14:50 [p.1398]
Mr. Speaker, we are going to proudly continue to defend the minister, who is of such outstanding integrity. The member is clearly struggling with a very basic concept. When an issue like this arises, the appropriate thing to do is to ask the Ethics Commissioner, an independent officer of this Parliament, for her advice and to follow that advice. It is something that the member opposite is struggling with and I would advise him, as I did earlier this week, to meet with her and she could explain to him how it actually works.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-02-25 15:10 [p.1402]
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with debate on the opposition motion that we began this morning.
Tomorrow, we will have the final day of debate at second reading on Bill C-4, concerning unions. I would like to note that the votes relating to this bill will be deferred to the end of the day on Monday, March 7, pursuant to an order adopted earlier today.
I want to sincerely thank my colleagues in the House for their co-operation in finding an agreement on this matter, and also on the ISIL motion, which was debated earlier this week.
Next week, as my colleague indicated, members will be working in their ridings.
On Monday, March 7, we will resume debate, at second reading stage, of Bill C-2 concerning a tax cut for the middle class. I would like to inform the House that Tuesday, March 8, will be an allotted day. On Wednesday, we will begin debate at second reading stage of Bill C-6 on citizenship, which was introduced this morning by my colleague, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. On Thursday, we will begin consideration of Bill C-5 concerning public servants' sick leave.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I know that you have been looking forward to this. Pursuant to Standing Order 83 (2), I would ask that an order of the day be designated for the Minister of Finance to present the budget at 4 p.m., on Tuesday, March 22, 2016.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-02-23 14:54 [p.1267]
Mr. Speaker, when we want advice on conflict of interest matters, we go directly to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Ms. Dawson, and that is exactly what my colleague did. She proactively went and sought the commissioner's advice. The minister and her husband are following the Ethics Commissioner's advice to a T.
Obviously, my colleague has an enormous amount of difficulty understanding that. I invite him to go and see Ms. Dawson. Her office is on Slater Street, here in Ottawa. She can tell him exactly how all this works.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-02-23 14:55 [p.1267]
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are not surprised that member does not know where the Ethics Commissioner's office is.
Let me be clear. The Minister of Justice has done exactly what is expected of honourable people who have shown throughout their entire career integrity and respect for good governance. She went to see the Ethics Commissioner with her husband, who has been in a business for 30 years, and asked for the advice of the Ethics Commissioner. The minister is following that advice, something the hon. member would have enormous difficulty doing.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-02-23 14:56 [p.1268]
Mr. Speaker, the only secret here is why that member continues to imagine all kinds of problems where none exist. Let me explain for him exactly what happened.
Our advice with respect to conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest comes from the person whom Parliament has chosen to provide that advice. Her name is Mary Dawson. She is the Ethics Commissioner and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. We are happy to take her advice and follow it meticulously. That is what my colleague has done. I wish the hon. member might inform himself as to how the process really works.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-02-22 14:48 [p.1192]
Mr. Speaker, members on the other side are having an enormous amount of difficulty with a very basic principle. When we came to office, we raised the bar on accountability and transparency.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-02-22 14:49 [p.1192]
They are laughing, Mr. Speaker, because they have a lot of things to try to hide.
Canadians saw through that, and on October 19, they chose a government that would raise the ethics rules, proactively meet with the ethics commissioner, and follow her advice. That is what the Minister of Justice has done, and that is what she will always continue to do.
Results: 361 - 420 of 464 | Page: 7 of 8

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data