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 1644
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-12 14:50 [p.3271]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows very well that all of the expenses associated with all of these international trips are disclosed proactively every quarter. He is aware of that. What he also knows is that this was a historic visit to our most important trading partner. This was a visit where important agreements were signed for things as important to Canadians and Canadian businesses as pre-clearance, agreements on energy, and discussions around how we can grow the most comprehensive and expansive trading relationship in the world. Every dollar spent on that trip was worth it for Canadians.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-12 14:51 [p.3272]
Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of setting the record straight on this historic trip many times.
As I have said before, this is the first time since 1997 that Canada has been awarded the honour of a state dinner at the White House. During this visit, a number of government ministers met with their American counterparts and also with members of civil society and the American legislature. At the same time, we made gains for Canadians on the topics of international trade, the environment, and energy.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-12 15:06 [p.3275]
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue with the Conservative opposition day. Tomorrow will be a further allotted day. Monday, we will begin report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-10 concerning Air Canada until 2 p.m. After question period, we will move on to Bill C-14 concerning medical assistance in dying.
I have had productive and optimistic discussions with my colleague House leaders. I am hopeful and optimistic that we will have an agreement on the handling of the debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-14 next week.
Provided we are able to complete debate on Bill C-14 next Wednesday, the House will debate an NDP opposition motion on Thursday.
Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Monday, May 16, for consideration in a committee of the whole of the main estimates for the Department of National Defence.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-11 14:45 [p.3194]
Mr. Speaker, we have said in the House Commons, and the Prime Minister has said a number of times, that this was a historic visit for Canada.
The other side of the House is struggling with how a guest list at a state dinner is drawn up. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? It is because the last time that there was a state dinner was 1997. That is why we think that this honour afforded Canada, and the progress made on substantive files that are important to Canadians, border security, pre-clearance, climate change, energy, are a testimony to this important relationship that we value so much.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-11 14:47 [p.3194]
Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some confusion on the other side. On the one hand, he wants us to include other ministers and other individuals and, at the same time, he says that those expenses are unreasonable.
What we have said is that the expenses for the trip to Washington were disclosed proactively. Our government has led with open and transparent disclosure of expenses, and every single one of those expenses was justified because of the substantive and important progress made during that visit to improve the lives of Canadians and strengthen this critical bilateral relationship.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-11 14:48 [p.3195]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way might not understand how guest lists for state dinners at the White House are drawn.
The last time Canada was given this honour was in 1997. Our visit was a historic one, and a great deal of progress was made on files and issues that affect the lives of Canadians, including climate change, border security, and energy.
We are extremely proud of the Canadian presence in Washington.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-11 14:49 [p.3195]
Mr. Speaker, the fact that my colleague keeps repeating exaggerated claims does not make them true.
We are an open and transparent government. We proactively disclosed our ministers' complete travel expenses, including the expenses for the Washington trip, which was an economic mission that was extremely important for Canada.
Although my colleagues opposite may not like the long list of what was accomplished on that trip, we are proud of the Canadian delegation and what it accomplished.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-11 15:55 [p.3200]
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That in relation to 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, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before this House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further amendment or debate.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-10 10:13 [p.3108]
Mr. Speaker, I know colleagues have been waiting for this moment for some time. I move:
That, in relation to Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill;
and
That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-10 14:30 [p.3141]
Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, and as the Prime Minister has said repeatedly, we are proud of everything we accomplished in Washington during our historic visit.
I would like to remind my colleague that this is the first time since 1997 that the White House has hosted a state dinner in Canada's honour. A number of individuals were invited by the White House and, as I also told my colleague yesterday, he knows perfectly well that all expenses associated with their presence there were reimbursed.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-10 14:31 [p.3142]
Mr. Speaker, since this is about ministers who lead important departments and who were part of the delegation, my colleague knows very well that they engaged their American counterparts on many files, including climate change, environment and energy, international security, defence co-operation, the global coalition against ISIL, border co-operation, and trade and commercial relationships.
The delegation had a rather busy schedule, and we are proud of what was accomplished.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-10 14:32 [p.3142]
Mr. Speaker, I draw my colleague's attention to the answer the Prime Minister just gave in terms of the family members who were invited directly by President Obama in addition to the official delegation. She should reflect on that answer. The Prime Minister gave a very precise answer to her exact question.
The member talks about the delegation. The delegation was comprised of many senior ministers who engaged their American counterparts, as I said, on issues as important to Canadians as climate change, trade, energy, and the environment. We made progress on something as important as pre-clearance.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-09 14:19 [p.3064]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows full well that the Prime Minister's in-laws and Mrs. Trudeau herself were guests of the President of the United States at a state dinner. He should also know that it is the first time since 1997 that Canada has been awarded the honour of a state dinner at the White House. These members of the Prime Minister's family were part of the official delegation.
I would remind the member that the President himself drew attention to Margaret Trudeau's presence there and her tireless work on behalf of those with mental illness.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-09 14:21 [p.3064]
Again, Mr. Speaker, my friend knows very well that the two individuals to whom he is referring were invited to attend the event by the White House. He should also know that the taxpayers in no way contributed to the expenses of these individuals. All of their expenses at all times were incurred by them personally and the taxpayers in no way, directly or indirectly, contributed to this part of the visit.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-09 14:22 [p.3064]
Mr. Speaker, we are proud of what we accomplished during that historic visit to Washington.
I would like to remind my colleague that it was the first time since 1997 that Canada had the honour of attending a state dinner at the White House.
My colleague referred to some people who work as volunteers with the Liberal Party of Canada. He knows full well that they covered their own expenses personally. Taxpayers did not contribute in any way at any time to funding their trip.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-09 14:29 [p.3066]
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said a number of times, and as I said a few minutes ago, this was a historic visit to the United States, the first opportunity since 1997 for a Canadian prime minister to be received at a state dinner. Significant progress was made on important issues to Canadians, like climate change, like pre-clearance at the border, like a shared vision of growing the trade between Canada and the United States. We are proud of the Prime Minister's visit to Washington, and we will make no apologies for defending Canadian interests in the United States.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-09 14:30 [p.3066]
Mr. Speaker, just because my friend across the aisle keeps repeating the same phrase does not necessarily make it accurate. He knows very well that this government has been open and transparent with respect to all expenses. He also knows that the individuals he was referring to, but does not have the guts to name, travelled to Washington on their own expense, and the taxpayers assumed none of those costs.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-09 14:31 [p.3066]
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are extremely proud of Margaret Trudeau. We are proud that the White House included her in its invitation.
We are very proud of Margaret and her important contribution to raising Canadians' awareness around mental health issues. President Obama himself congratulated Margaret Trudeau during the state dinner and praised her significant contribution in this important area.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-09 14:32 [p.3066]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is perfectly aware that Mrs. Grégoire-Trudeau's parents were also invited to the state dinner by the White House, an honour that Canada has not received since 1997.
I must say that we are extremely proud of this important visit to Washington and everything that the Prime Minister and several ministers accomplished during their historic visit.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-09 14:33 [p.3066]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has addressed this very issue on a number of occasions in this House, and again earlier today. The Prime Minister has a family of three young children. With the nature of his responsibilities, it is not inappropriate that two household staff, in addition to performing other duties, also act as secondary caregivers for the Prime Minister's family. Every prime minister's family has different needs and different circumstances, and the allocation with respect to our Prime Minister's family and the expenses of the house are entirely appropriate.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-09 14:34 [p.3067]
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the same question the member posed in the previous question. Therefore, I will give him exactly the same answer.
It is no surprise, given that the Prime Minister has three young children. Given the nature of his responsibilities, we think it is appropriate that two household staff, in addition to other responsibilities in the house, also act as secondary caregivers for the Prime Minister's children. All of the expenses of our Prime Minister and his family with respect to household staff are appropriate.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-09 18:03 [p.3098]
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I know colleagues were impressed with my colleague from Pickering—Uxbridge's speech and will want to make positive comments and ask questions. However, before we get to that I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and 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 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
2016-05-09 18:05 [p.3098]
Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading of 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.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-09 18:05 [p.3098]
Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that because we could not arrive at a conclusion to Bill C-15, the supply day designated for tomorrow, Tuesday, May 10, unfortunately has to be redesignated to Friday, May 13.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-05 15:10 [p.2955]
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to reiterate something that Canadians know well; that is, the Prime Minister's deep respect for Parliament and every member of this House of Commons. One of the priorities the Prime Minister has set for his government is to work collaboratively with all members of the House of Commons to improve decorum in the House of Commons.
If my colleague in front of me were honest, he would agree that we can all do more to improve decorum in the House and we should—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-05 15:11 [p.2955]
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, as always.
This afternoon, as everyone knows, we will continue our debate at second reading of Bill C-15, the budget. We will continue this important debate tomorrow.
On Monday, I know members are really looking forward to this. We are going to commence report stage and third reading debate on Bill C-7, the RCMP labour relations bill, until 2 p.m. In the afternoon, we will resume debate on Bill C-15.
I am hoping and working hard to reach an agreement with my colleagues in the House to be able to conclude the debate on Bill C-15 on Monday evening. That certainly would be my hope. I think Canadians would benefit from that legislation being in committee. Those conversations are ongoing.
On Wednesday, we will resume debate on Bill C-7.
Finally, next Tuesday and next Thursday will be opposition days, something I know members are looking forward to a lot.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-04 15:21 [p.2867]
moved:
That, in relation to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill;
and
That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-04 15:48 [p.2871]
Mr. Speaker, I look to your direction, but my colleague from Milton just accused an hon. member of this House of spewing lies in the House. If somebody should apologize, it is that member, for such an untrue statement.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-04 16:51 [p.2875]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am tabling, in both official languages, the government's response to Questions Nos. 80 and 81.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-03 14:48 [p.2779]
Mr. Speaker, what we are not going to apologize for is having an international trade minister who travels around the world promoting Canadian commercial interests in the United States and in other parts of the world. We are proud of the work she is doing for Canadian jobs and ensuring that Canadian companies are able to compete globally. She will continue to do that.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-03 17:29 [p.2800]
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26(1), I move:
That the House shall continue to sit beyond the hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), at second reading.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-03 17:31 [p.2801]
Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts (medical assistance in dying).
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting 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
2016-05-02 14:37 [p.2654]
Mr. Speaker, the minister visited Los Angeles to reinforce the important economic relationship between California and Canada. California and Canada conduct over $40 billion in annual bilateral trade.
The minister has made it clear that all the rules appropriate were followed with this trip. In addition to round tables with the business community and creative industries during the Los Angeles trade mission, the minister was proud to promote Canada to an American audience, including Canada's leadership on the Syrian refugee file.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-02 14:38 [p.2654]
Mr. Speaker, one group of people who were not in the dark about the minister's trip to California was the business leaders, the academic leaders, and the government leaders that she met with when she was in California to promote Canadian trade.
Forty billion dollars a year in bilateral trade is something we think is important. If the member does not think so, then he has a different view from this side of the House.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-02 14:43 [p.2655]
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the minister was defending Canada's economic interests when she met with California's business leaders and with elected and public officials.
We believe that a $40-billion-a-year trade relationship is important. The minister signed important agreements during her visit to California.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-02 14:45 [p.2656]
Mr. Speaker, our government does not apologize for promoting Canadian business interests abroad. When the Minister of International Trade was in California, as I and she have mentioned before, she had a series of meetings with business leaders and with officials in the government of California.
We think promoting Canada on critical issues like our support, for example, for Syrian refugees is an important part of every member of Parliament's work. We are proud of our Minister of International Trade.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-05-02 15:01 [p.2659]
Mr. Speaker, we are following the ruling of your predecessor. As you will know, prior to that ruling, independent MPs could not propose amendments at committees.
We are trying to ensure that members of Parliament from non-recognized parties in this House have an opportunity to play a constructive role in the legislative process at the committee stage, and we are giving MPs from non-recognized parties a bigger role in those committees.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-21 15:12 [p.2549]
Mr. Speaker, today, we will complete the debate on the New Democratic Party's opposition day on the Canadian dairy industry.
Tomorrow we will begin an important debate at second reading on Bill C-14, medical assistance in dying.
Next week, as my friend pointed out, we will be back in our ridings working hard to meet the people who elected us and sent us here.
When the House returns on Monday, May 2, we will continue our second reading debate of Bill C-14. I hope that we can sit late on Monday and Tuesday of that week so that all members who want to speak to this important bill can do so.
On Wednesday, the House will begin second reading debate on Bill C-15, the budget implementation act, 2016, No. 1. We will continue that important debate on Thursday.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to take this opportunity to wish Her Majesty the Queen a very happy 90th birthday.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-20 14:59 [p.2479]
Mr. Speaker, we have always said that great care must be taken with government spending and the management of public funds, and that this government will not allow anyone, under any circumstances, to misuse taxpayers' money.
The Senate has taken control of the situation. It has changed some of its rules. We encourage it to continue to work toward openness and transparency.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-20 15:00 [p.2479]
Mr. Speaker, as we have said, we have at all times understood the importance of managing taxpayer money in an appropriate way. We have thought that at any point those who are responsible for abusing or misusing taxpayer money should be held to account, and the money should be reimbursed. That includes the money that the New Democratic Party took for its satellite offices.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-20 15:28 [p.2483]
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-20 16:16 [p.2484]
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, in relation to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-04-20 17:31 [p.2490]
Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among the parties and I hope if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent that the government's response to Question No. 70 be made an order for return and that the response be tabled immediately.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
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—
Results: 361 - 420 of 1644 | Page: 7 of 28

|<
<
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data