Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 52
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2019-06-20 12:19 [p.29469]
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to offer my condolences to Mr. Warawa's family and friends and to his colleagues in the Conservative caucus.
Mr. Warawa proudly served the people of Langley—Aldergrove for 15 years. He was taken from us by cancer today, reminding us that there is still a long way to go to beat this terrible disease.
The last time he addressed the House, Mr. Warawa knew this day would come. He reminded us that members must not let themselves get too caught up in politics and forget what matters. He told us to take care of ourselves and to spend time with our families, because in the end, that is what really matters.
Rest in peace, Mark. Thank you for your public service and your contribution to your country.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-02-28 20:55 [p.25976]
Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the wonderful member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.
For the past two months, the Liberals have been completely embroiled in the SNC-Lavalin scandal. The former attorney general shared her version of the facts, what she calls her truth. Now I would like to share the facts available to us with the House.
SNC-Lavalin is a Montreal-based consulting engineering firm that employs thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians. In 2015, the RCMP charged SNC-Lavalin with fraud and corruption in relation to its activities in Libya. A 2015 agreement with Ottawa enabled the engineering firm to keep bidding on federal contracts until the legal proceedings are complete.
If the company is found guilty, it will not be allowed to bid on government contracts anywhere in the world, including Quebec and Canada, for 10 years. In other words, it may as well close up shop. To prevent that from happening, to prevent SNC-Lavalin from closing its doors or moving its head office to some other country, the federal government created a tool known as remediation agreements. This tool was created for SNC-Lavalin in particular. The Minister of National Revenue made that clear in her February 19 interview on 98.5 with Bernard Drainville. He asked her this question:
Do you want a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin?
The Minister of National Revenue answered:
What I can tell you here is that the cabinet decision made for SNC-Lavalin is not just for SNC-Lavalin, but for large corporations, whether they are in Quebec or Canada. This decision has already been made by other countries. It is important to protect employees and all the people working for SNC-Lavalin.
In her very candid answer, the minister clearly said that the decision to amend the Criminal Code was made for SNC-Lavalin. I will repeat what she said:
...the cabinet decision made for SNC-Lavalin...
That is what she said. Remediation agreements came into effect in September 2018. That is when the Prime Minister asked his then attorney general to use remediation agreements for SNC-Lavalin. It was not a surprise. The government had amended the law for this particular case.
Before I go on, I want to review what a remediation agreement is according to the Department of Justice. The parliamentary secretary said previously that it is important to know what it is, so I will begin by quoting the section on the purposes of a remediation agreement.
The main purposes of a remediation agreement would be:
To denounce an organization’s wrongdoing and the harms that such wrongdoing has caused to victims or to the community;
To hold the organization accountable for the wrongdoing;
To require the organization to put measures in place to correct the problem and prevent similar problems in the future;
To reduce harm that a criminal conviction of an organization could have for employees, shareholders and other third parties who did not take part in the offence; and
To help repair harm done to victims or to the community, including through reparations and restitution.
In the next section, “Potential benefits of a remediation agreement”, it says:
A remediation agreement would hold organizations accountable for their wrongdoing and would provide an incentive to rectify their wrongdoing, while avoiding some of the negative consequences of a criminal conviction. It could help result in faster compensation to victims and protect jobs of innocent employees and investments of innocent shareholders. The possibility of being able to negotiate a remediation agreement may also encourage corporations to disclose wrongdoing and cooperate more readily with investigators.
One last excerpt:
While an agreement is in force, any criminal prosecution for conduct that is covered by the agreement would be put on hold [not withdrawn]. If the accused organization complies with terms and conditions set out in the agreement, the prosecutor would apply to a judge for an order of successful completion when the agreement expires. The charges would then be stayed and no criminal conviction would result. If the accused did not comply, the charges could be revived and the accused could be prosecuted and potentially convicted.
A remediation agreement does not mean that if a company breaks the law, it will not be prosecuted. A remediation agreement is a way to ensure that it will no longer break the law.
SNC-Lavalin is a company that committed crimes, and it must pay for these crimes. The ones who should not pay are the thousands of people who work for the company, its retirees, clients, contractors and subcontractors, and Quebeckers, who are shareholders through the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. Just because SNC-Lavalin broke the law does not mean that the company should be destroyed.
Criminals are the ones who should be punished. This means that we should prosecute the executives who broke the law. This means that the company should pay for the crimes it committed. A remediation agreement allows for this to happen, which is why many countries have this tool.
I want to get back to September 2018. The Prime Minister asked the former attorney general to sign a remediation agreement, which she has the authority to do by law, but she refused to do so. Yesterday the former attorney general spoke for hours, but we still do not know why she refused.
The Prime Minister's Office told her that without a remediation agreement, SNC-Lavalin might move to London. The former attorney general responded that she would not change her mind. The Prime Minister's Office told her that this could jeopardize thousands of jobs in Quebec and Canada. She replied that she would not change her mind.
Every possible argument was made. She was asked whether she would like to get other expert opinions, but she said no. She was told it could cost them the upcoming election, but she said she did not care. She was told commitments had been made, but she refused to budge. She was told the head office and thousands of jobs were at stake, but it made no difference.
Why did she refuse to enter into a remediation agreement, a measure she had voted for, with the company for which remediation agreements had originally been introduced? We still do not know. It is a secret. After four hours of testimony, we still do not know.
As a democratic party that loves democracy, we believe in the separation of powers. We believe that the judicial and executive branches should be independent of each other. We believe that this principle must be protected at all times, without compromise.
Was there any undue pressure? I am still not sure. Before the Prime Minister is taken away in handcuffs, I would like to hear all sides of the story. I would like to hear more than just the former attorney general's version of the facts. I want to know the truth, plain and simple.
For the moment, the truth is that thousands of jobs are at stake. The truth is that SNC-Lavalin could leave Montreal for London. The truth is that the Conservatives and the NDP would rather focus on a Liberal political scandal than on the human tragedy that would befall thousands of families if SNC-Lavalin were to leave. The truth is that the only way to save those jobs is a remediation agreement. The truth is that, if we want SNC-Lavalin to pay for its crimes, we need that remediation agreement. The truth is that there is still no such agreement.
Yesterday, we witnessed a settling of scores between the former attorney general and the Prime Minister. She did not answer the most fundamental question: why did she decide not to sign a remediation agreement, which would prevent the loss of thousands of jobs and a head office in Quebec? She had the power to do so, yet she chose not to. Why?
Now, the new Attorney General needs to take responsibility. It will not be easy, but it is the right thing to do. If he does not sign an agreement, then thousands of SNC-Lavalin employees will be the victims of this settling of scores. For them, it was high time that we had an emergency debate on this issue.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
2019-02-19 11:12 [p.25483]
Madam Speaker, the motion moved by our NDP colleagues is entirely appropriate for one aspect of this scandal, namely the disastrous mismanagement shown by the Prime Minister's Office. Our colleagues who sponsored the motion are right to say that we need to hear from Ms. Wilson-Raybould and that we need a public inquiry. I support these requests—
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
2019-02-19 11:13 [p.25483]
Madam Speaker, you are right. I apologize.
Regarding the utter mismanagement, I absolutely agree with the position taken by our colleagues from the second opposition party. I support a public inquiry and I agree that the former attorney general of Canada should testify.
That said, we must also consider the equally devastating consequences of this scandal on the third parties involved, namely, the SNC-Lavalin workers, who have nothing to do with the fraudulent acts committed by the former executives at that company. For the workers, suppliers and other third parties who do business with SNC-Lavalin, reaching a remediation agreement seems crucial to me.
Why is there nothing in the motion moved by the second opposition party regarding the importance of reaching a remediation agreement as well as protecting Quebec's civil engineers and their expertise?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2019-02-19 15:47 [p.25525]
Madam Speaker, first the Prime Minister blamed the former justice minister because she did not complain about not being pressured. Then he said that it was Scott Brison's fault. Surely the Prime Minister mixed up the SNC-Lavalin fiasco with the Davie shipyard file. The latest development is that his top adviser has stepped down, refusing to take the blame for something he did not do and not wanting to be a distraction, though he did in fact become one. It is easy to get lost in all of these versions. This is “Fifty shades of Butts”.
Meanwhile, no party in the House seems concerned about the future of the thousands of workers at SNC-Lavalin.
Can my colleague explain how this motion helps, or does not help, the thousands of SNC-Lavalin workers?
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
BQ (QC)
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
2019-02-06 15:54 [p.25336]
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I rise to salute the member for Kings—Hants, who is leaving this place at the end of his term after 22 years of public service. For 22 years, the member has been very effective in bringing the concerns of his constituents and his province, Nova Scotia, to this place—perhaps even too effective.
Serving as minister many times over, and as President of the Treasury Board, he has held several important positions and left his mark in the public service, particularly during this term.
In closing, I want to acknowledge his unusual political journey. He is man who stays true to his principles when his values are challenged. When voters go to the polls, they expect to be able to count on people who stand up for them when it matters. The member for Kings—Hants was clearly one such individual.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2018-10-18 15:05 [p.22571]
Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question of privilege.
In response to our question yesterday, the Prime Minister misled the House by providing incorrect information. The interim leader of the Bloc Québécois asked him why the rush to legalize cannabis by October 17, and the Prime Minister replied:
The provinces, including Quebec, asked for eight to 12 weeks to legalize cannabis after the entry into force of the bill, and we gave them 17 weeks.
However, Quebec asked to push cannabis legislation back to July 1, 2019. The Quebec National Assembly adopted a unanimous motion to that effect on November 16, 2017. It reads:
THAT the National Assembly ask the Federal Government to defer the cannabis legalization currently scheduled to come into force on 1 July 2018 until at least 1 July 2019.
The Prime Minister's statement was misleading.
In addition, after the National Assembly adopted this motion, it also unanimously agreed to send this motion to the Prime Minister and to all Liberal members of Parliament from Quebec.
The Prime Minister therefore had knowledge of the resolution adopted by the Quebec National Assembly. The Prime Minister therefore knew when he was making that statement that it was incorrect.
Given that the Prime Minister's statement was misleading and that the Prime Minister made a statement that he knew to be incorrect, it seems clear to us that the Prime Minister intended to mislead the House. Just this morning we received the selected decisions from May 7, 2012, of the Speaker who preceded you. On page 31, it states:
It has become accepted practice in this House that the following elements have to be established when it is alleged that a Member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House: one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the Member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the Member intended to mislead the House.
Given that the Prime Minister's statement was misleading and incorrect—as we have demonstrated—and given that he knew, when he was making the statement, that it was misleading and incorrect—as we have demonstrated—what other intention could he have had apart from misleading the House by saying these falsehoods?
I repeat the Prime Minister's reply:
The provinces, including Quebec, asked for eight to 12 weeks to legalize cannabis after the entry into force of the bill, and we gave them 17 weeks.
I would like to clarify that I raised my question of privilege at the earliest opportunity because the most recent information was obtained during yesterday's question period.
Finally, should you consider it to be a prima facie question of privilege, I intend to move the following motion: That the House acknowledge that the Prime Minister misled the House and ask him to correct the answer to the question posed October 17, 2018, by the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, and to apologize to the House.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, Mr. Speaker.
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2018-10-16 15:02 [p.22457]
Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia's Irving Group has good connections in the federal government. When the Conservatives were in power, Irving received $65 billion in shipbuilding contracts, while Davie shipyard in Quebec had to settle for a single contract.
Now that the Liberals are in power, they have tried to derail the only contract awarded to Quebec, probably under the influence of the President of the Treasury Board, a minister from Nova Scotia.
Is this the real change that the Liberals had in mind for Davie's workers?
View Xavier Barsalou-Duval Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to address the House.
As House leader for the Bloc Québécois, I offer my deepest and most sincere condolences on behalf of our leader, Martine Ouellet, and on behalf of my colleagues and members of the Bloc Québécois to the family of Gordon Brown, his friends, and all of his colleagues in the House of Commons, in particular his colleagues in the Conservative Party of Canada.
In difficult times like these, we are reminded of how fragile human life is, as we all have to face our mortality. Our colleague left us too soon. His death touches me as a member of Parliament and also as a human being, knowing that he would not have had the chance to say goodbye to his loved ones.
I want to recognize the commitment, selflessness, and courage of a man who dedicated his life to the well-being of his constituents.
Today, we all owe him our profound respect and deepest gratitude. My thoughts and prayers are with him and his loved ones. May he rest in peace and may his family find solace.
View Xavier Barsalou-Duval Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's trip to India turned out to be a sham. With eight days of sightseeing, few diplomatic meetings, and no major deals signed, it seems like this trip was just an opportunity to take more selfies and strut around in traditional attire, making Indians very uncomfortable. This political spectacle looks a lot like vote seeking.
Can the Prime Minister tell us how much his pointless, all-expenses-paid trip cost, especially to Quebec taxpayers?
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
BQ (QC)
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
2018-02-26 15:04 [p.17367]
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister plays dress-up for photo ops, he looks ridiculous and loses all credibility as a government leader. However, insinuating that Quebec's independence movement, a peaceful and democratic movement, is synonymous with violence tarnishes the international reputation of Quebec and the millions of Quebeckers who support this movement for liberty.
Will the Prime Minister apologize for the disgraceful and ill-advised comments that were reported?
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2018-02-06 16:47 [p.16852]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are saying that we need to respect the institution, as though the Conflict of Interest Act is not part of the institution and as though violating that act is not an attack on the institution.
The Liberals are trying to derail the debate on the Prime Minister's supposed lack of judgment in accepting the vacations. In fact, they are telling us that voters are not interested in this issue or that they are interested in other things.
I think that is unacceptable coming from a government that claimed to want to do politics differently. Voters are cynical about the institution, Parliament, and all elected officials because they think that, once people get elected, they no longer respect the institution and, by extension, they no longer respect Canadians. That is exactly what the Prime Minister did.
Before we even get into talking about consequences or restitution, it is important to note that he demonstrated a lack of judgment unworthy of his position. Would he ever have told us during the election in a leadership debate that, if he ever violated the Conflict of Interest Act, all he would do is apologize and we would move on to something else? How can my colleague explain the Prime Minister's lack of judgment?
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2017-12-07 15:04 [p.16155]
Mr. Speaker, in December 2016, the interim Conservative leader, Ms. Ambrose, asked the Ethics Commissioner to investigate the Prime Minister's dinner with Chinese billionaires, including the founder of Wealth One bank in Vancouver.
My question is simple: in the documents that the Prime Minister submitted to the Ethics Commissioner, was there a list of the Vancouver donors who donated $70,000 to the riding of Papineau on July 6 and 7, 2016?
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2017-12-07 15:06 [p.16156]
Mr. Speaker, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is investigating the fact that preferential access to the Prime Minister was given to Chinese billionaires, including the founder of a bank in Vancouver. On the day that bank received its charter, Papineau received $70,000. Now we are expected to be satisfied with an answer like that. Canadians deserve respect. They deserve transparency. They deserve an answer.
Did the Prime Minister give the list of Vancouver donors to the Ethics Commissioner, yes or no?
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2017-12-04 15:06 [p.15929]
Mr. Speaker, through the member for Louis-Hébert, the Liberal government has misled the public.
The Ethics Commissioner was unable to give her blessing to a kickback worth about $70,000 in Papineau, because the report of the Chief Electoral Officer was not even available, as the members of this government are well aware.
Will the Prime Minister apologize for once again taking the public for fools?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2017-12-01 12:03 [p.15869]
Mr. Speaker, the Lawrence family is scheduled to be deported on Sunday. The government had better act fast.
We want an explanation before the Prime Minister leaves for China next week. We know that, on May 19, the Prime Minister attended a $1,500 dinner for Vancouver's Chinese community with the founder of a bank. On July 7, the Liberal government authorized that bank to do business in Canada.
What we did not know was that, in the space of 48 hours, the Prime Minister received $70,000 from wealthy Chinese individuals in Vancouver for his Liberal riding association. If that is not payback, then what is?
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2017-11-30 15:09 [p.15818]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is refusing to explain how $70,000 ended up in his riding's coffers and is hiding behind his party's half-baked explanation. The party is now saying that that money came from a fundraising event that was held in British Columbia at the end of June.
Since when are fundraising events for Papineau held 5,000 kilometres away from Montreal?
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2017-11-30 15:10 [p.15818]
Mr. Speaker, the facts are these. On May 19, 2016, the founder of Wealth One paid $1,500 for a private dinner with the Prime Minister. On July 7, he got his wish and was told that his bank could open. Then, by sheer coincidence, within 48 hours of the bank getting approved, $70,000 was deposited into the bank account of the Liberal riding of Papineau by wealthy Chinese individuals from Vancouver.
If that was not a way to return the favour, then what was it?
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2017-11-29 15:14 [p.15741]
Mr. Speaker, the 2016 political financing report reveals a coincidence in the Papineau riding that is troubling, to say the least.
On July 6 and 7, 2016, while the Liberal government was approving a Chinese bank in Vancouver, the Prime Minister received nearly $70,000 for his riding from wealthy Chinese individuals from Vancouver. That was nearly two-thirds of his political financing in under 48 hours.
Can he explain that to us?
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2017-11-22 15:19 [p.15432]
Mr. Speaker, subsequent to the point of order my colleague from Joliette raised on November 8, I would like to share some additional observations that I hope will inform your consideration of the matter. I also believe that the vote was marred by irregularities and should be retaken.
As my colleague from Joliette said, the code of conduct for members of Parliament, which is part of our Standing Orders, clearly prohibits an elected member from furthering his or her private interests. In addition to taking part in the vote on Motion No. 42, a motion that will have an impact on his private interests, the Minister of Finance influenced the debate through his then-parliamentary secretary, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain.
As stated in the “Guide for Parliamentary Secretaries”, issued by the Prime Minister on January 16, 2016, a parliamentary secretary speaks on behalf of the minister. In other words, when a parliamentary secretary takes the floor in the House, it is the minister's words that we hear, as we can see on pages 1 and 2 of the guide. On page 1, under Your Role and Responsibilities, it says:
Section 47 of the Parliament of Canada Act sets out the following succinct job description: “The Parliamentary Secretary or Secretaries to a minister shall assist the minister in such manner as the minister directs.” In this context, the responsibilities of parliamentary secretaries generally fall into two broad categories: (1) House business and (2) department-related duties.
On page 2, under House Business, it says:
In this context, the role of parliamentary secretaries in supporting ministers’ House duties includes:
--attending Question Period;
--piloting the minister’s legislation through the legislative process on the floor of the House, in parliamentary committees...and with caucus and opposition MPs;
--supporting the minister’s position on Private Members’ Business;
Later on, the guide specifically talks about the role of parliamentary secretaries with respect to private members' business. On page 4, under Private Members' Business, the guide states:
Given that ministers do not generally participate directly in debates on Private Members’ Business, this is an opportunity for parliamentary secretaries to bring their parliamentary skills to bear. This is particularly so since all Private Members’ Business comes to a vote. Parliamentary secretaries play a key role in the Government's handling of Private Members’ Business, in that they:
--may be called upon to speak for the minister during Private Members’ Hour;
--work with the Government House Leader’s office to organize and deliver the minister’s response to Private Members’ Bills and motions;
As members can see, Minister of Finance, by way of his his parliamentary secretary, reassured members of the House about the government's actions on this matter. He also urged them to vote against Motion No. 42. I remind members that if this motion had passed, it would have affected the minister's personal interests.
I want to be clear. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance should have recused himself from the debates on Motion No. 42, since he speaks on behalf of his minister. I repeat, this minister's interests are directly affected by Motion No. 42. As my colleague from Joliette pointed out, we are talking about the results of a vote and about the integrity of the House of Commons as an institution, which you oversee, Mr. Speaker. We are here, at the heart of representative democracy, and at the heart of the trust that the public must have in its representatives. This vote should be taken again, since it was tainted.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2017-11-08 15:13 [p.15138]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A year ago, on October 26, 2016, the House voted down my Motion No. 42 on tax havens.
Specifically, my motion called on the government to amend section 5907 of the Income Tax Regulations in order to ensure that the income that a Canadian company brings back from its subsidiary in Barbados, or 22 other tax havens, will henceforth be taxed in Canada.
In my view, the vote was full of irregularities and should be retaken. The code of conduct for members of Parliament is part of our Standing Orders, which clearly prohibit an elected member from furthering his or her private interests. We now know that the Minister of Finance has companies located in tax havens. His family's company, Morneau Shepell, promotes the use of tax havens through pension funds and insurance companies. Adopting Motion No. 42 would have had a major impact on the minister's finances. It would have seriously impeded his ability to carry on business as usual. In the Journals of October 26, 2016, we see that the Minister of Finance took part in the vote and voted against Motion No. 42. In fact, with the notable exception of the hon. member for Cambridge, every Liberal member voted against Motion No. 42 because they were strongly urged to vote along party lines.
On pages 220 and 221 of the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, published in 2009, it says that members may not vote on questions in which they have a personal interest, and that any such vote may be challenged and disallowed.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2017-11-08 15:16 [p.15138]
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance had a private interest in the motion on tax havens being defeated. As I was saying, according to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, I challenge the Minister of Finance's vote, as well as the vote of all those he could have influenced. I urge you to disqualify them.
As indicated on page 214 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, “On being elected, Members of the House of Commons become trustees of public confidence. Members must place the public’s interests over their private interests and derive no personal benefit or gain from their decisions.”
I know this because the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is responsible for enforcing the code of ethics and the Conflict of Interest Act. She does an amazing job. This is not about the ethics of a single member of Parliament. This is about the result of a vote and the integrity of the House of Commons as an institution presided over by the Speaker. We are here, at the heart of representative democracy, at the heart of the bonds of trust that need to exist between the public and its representatives and without which the House of Commons has no legitimacy. In light of the irregularities and the appearance of conflicts of interest that tainted the vote on Motion No. 42 on tax havens, I think that the vote should be overturned and taken again.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2017-11-07 12:51 [p.15071]
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his good question.
The Minister of Finance is supposed to pass legislation affecting the economy and guide his government on economic matters. We now know more about his business interests and might wonder whose interests he is serving. Is he governing for the entire population or for his company?
Just before being appointed Minister of Finance, he was still a senior executive at his company. He recently announced that he would sell millions of shares, but for the past two years were his decisions primarily motivated by how they could potentially benefit his company financially?
When I moved a motion to combat tax evasion in Barbados, every member of the Liberal Party voted against the motion with one exception. We wonder whether the Minister of Finance had a say in that. We know that his company has a subsidiary in Barbados. On the company's website it says that its work on Canadian pension funds includes arrangements in Barbados and people are invited to contact the company. When the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, and the entire government are making decisions, whose interests are they serving? That is the question. This seriously undermines our trust in him, that is for sure.
An hon. member: A blatant conflict of interest.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
2017-11-03 12:07 [p.14946]
Mr. Speaker, the member is still missing the point, but this is nothing new.
When we talk about ethics and integrity, the Prime Minister tells us that his ministers are following the rules. The $200 fine paid by his Minister of Finance proves otherwise. The Prime Minister's trip to the Aga Khan also proves otherwise.
One of the problems is the legal framework around the rules. This limits the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's scope of action.
Instead of finding ways to get around the rules, why does the Prime Minister not agree to strengthen the legislation?
View Xavier Barsalou-Duval Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how we are supposed to protect our culture without any guarantees regarding francophone content, but fine.
The Minister of Finance is introducing a bill on pension plans, when his company manages pension plans. Morneau Shepell manages a pension fund for Bombardier, and yet he negotiated a $372-million loan. The minister is proposing a tax reform that makes businesses pay more taxes, but he included a grandfather clause for his own company. Something does not add up here. If the minister does not have the judgment needed to step back when his own personal interests are at stake, he should simply withdraw from cabinet.
View Michel Boudrias Profile
BQ (QC)
View Michel Boudrias Profile
2017-10-31 15:09 [p.14768]
Mr. Speaker, what we have here is the same old sponsorship scandal party, the same old Liberal culture of entitlement.
Week after week, every time that government answers a question, Canadians feel more cynical and politicians as a whole look worse. With everything that has been going on, we are going to need another Gomery commission.
Will anyone in that government acknowledge that being a shareholder in a human resources company like Morneau Shepell and introducing a pension fund bill amounts to a potential conflict of interest?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2017-10-30 15:04 [p.14682]
Mr. Speaker, Morneau Shepell has a subsidiary in the Bahamas, and all Liberal members are voting against the Bloc Québécois motion to tackle tax evasion in Barbados. How bizarre.
Morneau Shepell works in the field of pension plans, and all Liberal members are voting in favour of the bill on pension plans that benefits companies like the one owned by the Minister of Finance. How bizarre.
In the interest of transparency, could the Liberal members who have shares in Morneau Shepell please raise their hands?
View Simon Marcil Profile
BQ (QC)
View Simon Marcil Profile
2017-10-27 12:02 [p.14635]
Madam Speaker, it is not a great idea to have a minister making decisions that he himself benefits from. His situation is reminiscent of the Paul Martin era. The minister says it is not all that bad, because he is going to make up for his mistake by donating to charity. After being caught with both hands in the cookie jar, he is offering us a cookie to look the other way. Is he trying to buy our silence?
I would like the Minister of Finance to tell us exactly how much money he earned from each decision he made.
View Simon Marcil Profile
BQ (QC)
View Simon Marcil Profile
2017-10-17 16:52 [p.14192]
Madam Speaker, we can agree that after 10 years in opposition purgatory, the Liberal government has not really changed its corporate culture.
Who would my colleague say is the worst Minister of Finance between the dishonourable Paul Martin, who registered his ships in Barbados, or the current finance minister, who hid a villa in France?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2017-09-18 15:33 [p.13151]
Mr. Speaker, Arnold Chan dedicated his life to politics in Toronto and Ottawa. He could have spent more time with his family and friends but he served the public and his fellow citizens instead. Then came the damn cancer, a really terrible disease.
Arnold was a really good guy, a nice fellow, always smiling, affable, brilliant, and certainly much too young to leave this world. Of course, my thoughts are with his wife and his three sons, who lost their dad much too soon. With all my heart and on behalf of my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, I extend my deepest sympathy.
I also offer my condolences to all of you who knew Arnold, who were his friends, who loved and appreciated him. On the day we win the fight against cancer together and make it a disease curable with a simple pill, we will remember Arnold Chan and all the other friends we lost too early. I hope that day will come soon.
Thank you, Arnold, and farewell.
Results: 1 - 30 of 52 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data