What we often see from this NDP-Liberal government is that they try to take every opportunity to avoid accountability and reasonable and fair criticism of their failures.
On Mr. Bains' motion, in his preamble or his justification, I didn't hear the falsehood that he said was made against him, nor evidence that anything that was said or repeated by my colleague was incorrect. This is the pattern.
The irony, of course, is that Mr. Bains and the NDP-Liberal government are saying that it's intimidation. If they hope to move a motion and someone else moves a motion that speaks to a different issue that's critical of them, that's intimidation.
They've put forward a motion, without any evidence, to attempt to censure an opposition MP, but that's not intimidation.
We heard, in the most bizarre terms at the last meeting, a Liberal member say that simply referencing the behaviour of another MP is inciting hate. That same MP, in the seven days before, tweeted out the name of every Conservative member of this committee, looking to engage social media users to reach out to those MPs.
Members of Parliament must be accountable to Canadians. To have the NDP-Liberal government try to take a situation like this....
Let's just be very black and white. Mr. Brock was recognized by the chair of the committee; he had the floor and he appropriately moved a motion. The allegation by Mr. Bains is that it's intimidation. It's an attempt to try to silence him from doing his job.
This is obviously an attempt by Mr. Bains.... It's a vexatious motion to try to silence someone who's rightly critical of the government.
A great example of the situation we're facing in this country this week and the lack of seriousness by parties in the House with respect to foreign interference is that we had the government put forward a bill to finally take some steps to address foreign interference in our democratic institutions in our last election, like has been alleged in Steveston—Richmond East, which is Mr. Bains' riding. The official opposition put forward a motion in the House to fast-track the bill, so that it could be passed because we've heard from security officials that it's going to take them up to a year and a half to fully implement the provisions of this bill. The NDP withheld consent. They blocked the expeditious passage of legislation to address foreign interference in our democracy.
There are a lot of big questions about the motivations of members of parties with respect to serious issues. It seems like an attempt to control the narrative on what's okay to talk about on foreign interference and what's not okay to talk about on foreign interference.
How can we, as parliamentarians, talk about foreign interference in our elections if we can't talk about allegations of interference in our election in specific ridings?
How can we do that? How can we hear testimony from witnesses on foreign interference when they allege there were attempts to interfere in their election by foreign state actors? That person comes and testifies. Then a member repeats those allegations. The individual who's a beneficiary of those alleged actions then says, “Well, you're attempting to intimidate me by talking about the evidence we heard on a study the committee asked to have.”
I would note that this is now the second meeting where the published notice of meeting has in camera consideration of a draft report listed, and the committee is not dealing with that. Interestingly, that study is also critical of government departments. We see this time and again. There are attempts to block scrutiny of the government put on them by the official opposition. It's in the name. Our job is to be the check against the balance of power. After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, we see how we have a government that is the least transparent in history.
They use every tool to try to silence their critics. Every time there's criticism of the government, there's an attempt to deflect it. The government spends $1.3 million on so-called affordability retreats. “Oh, well, we don't want to talk about that. Let's talk about people who talked about evidence at committee instead.”
This coalition government, which is presiding over a cost of living crisis, is refusing to expeditiously pass legislation to combat foreign interference. It fights tooth and nail to block scrutiny of ministers like Minister Boissonnault and his business associates Mr. Anderson and Ms. Poon, who are supposed to be here Tuesday. Well, we haven't gotten through the business of this committee at the last two meetings. I have a suspicion there's an attempt to block the work of members who are scrutinizing Minister Boissonnault's actions. That's the tactic we're seeing from the NDP-Liberal government.
It's interesting that the request is for an apology. I don't need to ask Mr. Brock if that ask was made to him discreetly and in good faith by members opposite before they jumped up on the soapbox, because I know they didn't. It isn't an attempt to solicit an apology. It's an attempt to silence criticism of a corrupt government and of a Prime Minister twice found guilty of breaking ethics laws. Criticism of the government is being deflected by tactics like the ones we saw at the last meeting, which descended into, I believe, intentional chaos through members of the NDP-Liberal government.
We know it is a fact that there was a misinformation campaign targeting the riding of Steveston—Richmond East. Well, who was the intended beneficiary of that?
These questions are huge. We have a commission looking into these questions, not because the member for Brantford—Brant was looking to silence the member for Steveston—Richmond East. It's because this is a matter of national concern that has also alarmed our international allies. The global community is watching.
We used to be asked to go and monitor elections in other countries. What's happening in this country compromises our ability to be a beacon of democracy elsewhere if we don't take it seriously, but we see intimidation attempts by the government to try to silence critics and to try to silence parliamentary opposition.
Are we able to talk about the Chinese Canadians and Uyghurs who are terrorized by the CCP? Are we allowed to share their experience, or is that an attempt to silence a government that has been alleged to be the beneficiary of foreign interference by the Communist dictatorship in Beijing?
Some of their members might have been elected because of it; therefore, their members could be intimidated by that discussion, so we can't talk about it. It's preposterous. It's preposterous.
We've seen a warm hand, well beyond a wink and a nudge, for the dictatorship in Beijing by Justin Trudeau. Justin Trudeau even said he admired their basic dictatorship. Those are his words, not mine.
I appreciate that by quoting someone else's words in context I might hear that I've jeopardized the Prime Minister's parliamentary privilege by being critical. That's my job, and that's our job. Talking about what happens here is our job.
It's not as if we haven't seen examples from the government before in which they've tried to do exactly what they're doing right now. Justin Trudeau is guilty of contravening sections 5, 11, 12 and 21 of the Conflict of Interest Act, and when we attempt to address these issues at this committee, we have seen extraordinary filibusters, extraordinary, weeks on end.
The Prime Minister was further found guilty of contravening section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act for politically interfering in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. That's a company that was charged with fraud and corruption for bribing Libyan officials of the Gadhafi regime. There were $48 million in bribes, defrauding Libyan organizations out of $130 million.
When we've attempted to scrutinize why there weren't criminal sanctions when we've seen the evidence that the RCMP had a decision tree, for example, in the case of Trudeau Report 1, and it showed that for the Prime Minister to have been able to take a trip to billionaire island—the first time he had a series of findings of guilt against him for breaking the Conflict of Interest Act—the only question in the RCMP decision tree on whether or not there was a reasonable prospect of convicting him for fraud on government for accepting a gift worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from an individual who was the beneficiary of millions of dollars in grants from the government.... The only outstanding question was whether or not the Prime Minister had received permission in writing from the head of the branch of government for which he worked.
The Prime Minister admitted in the House that he had not, in fact, satisfied that criterion. By the RCMP's own analysis, there was a reasonable prospect of conviction against Justin Trudeau for the relevant Criminal Code offences. We had the RCMP commissioner at the table and we had the cover-up coalition move to adjourn the meeting.
Is that not a breach of the privileges of members of the official opposition, who are trying to do their job?
The commissioner of the RCMP was sitting at the table, and they adjourned the meeting. Proper notice was given for the meeting. The meeting was set in accordance with and complying with all of the Standing Orders and usual practices of the House of Commons.
Does that not rise to the same level as being in a meeting, discussing evidence that was given about matters that are before the committee?
I've heard great umbrage being taken by members of the NDP-Liberal government when we talk about them covering up corruption by their government. “You can't say that,” they claim. If you do say it, my goodness, they're going to try to make sure that people don't hear about it. Shut down the meetings.
I think it was two weeks ago that we had the law clerk and an officer of Parliament sitting in the room, ready to give testimony, but it wasn't going to be flattering to the government. What happened? The meeting was adjourned.
This is a pattern we see, just like in this motion from Mr. Bains. Anything that resembles criticism of the government or that doesn't match their narrative is not acceptable.
The official opposition isn't going to be deterred by the efforts of this coalition. We have to hold it to account. We must expose this government when it fails Canadians. I put it that way, “when it fails Canadians,” as it has in so many instances.
We've addressed at this committee.... This is another example of tactics like the one we're seeing in this motion being used to block criticism of the government and its members, including members of the executive, with their $60-million arrive scam.
The transparency that we look to apply is met with fierce opposition from the government. We were told in 2022, “There's nothing to see here. It all worked fine, but we can't tell you who did the work, and we won't tell you how much it cost.”
Every Liberal member of Parliament and every member of cabinet voted against having the Auditor General investigate.
Wait a second. Is that the same standard Mr. Bains is looking to set with this motion?
Is disagreeing with the government a violation of the privilege of the members of Parliament who voted for the Auditor General to look into what has been demonstrated to be a massive scandal for the Trudeau government?
We see grifters who are skimming 30% on contracts worth tens of millions of dollars but adding no value to that work. Had the government had its way and not allowed us to do our work and not allowed us to engage the parliamentary tools that are available to us, like the Office of the Auditor General, like the Office of the Procurement Ombud, then we wouldn't have the information that we have about how broken the systems have become after nine years of Justin Trudeau and his NDP-Liberal government.
We're asking questions and putting forward motions like Mr. Brock put forward appropriately at the meeting, a motion that was in order. I don't have a copy of the blues in front of me to read back, as evidence, Mr. Brock's statements from that meeting, but I'll be interested to hear from the mover of the motion, Mr. Bains. Where's the lie? That's what I want to hear. I'm interested to hear, and I would have expected that in his litigation of this question, in his explanation of the necessity of this when we're not dealing with the business of the committee, we might hear what it was that Mr. Brock said that wasn't true.
My further question, should Mr. Bains choose to entertain the question, would be this. What efforts did he take? If he's looking for an apology, instead of spending hours of committee time to solicit an apology, did he ask for one? Was he denied and then looked to escalate it?
However, this isn't about that. This is about looking to create a distraction from his government, which is in crisis. We continue to see examples of that. The billion-dollar green slush fund is another prime example of when, after the government is challenged for its mismanagement of the file, we hear from the minister, who says that as soon as they found out, they took reasonable steps, and they're going to restore governance, and it's all been very reasonable.
The hand-picked Liberal chair and another member are both being investigated by the Ethics Commissioner, because I had to refer the matter to that commissioner's office. Their chair resigned in disgrace. You would think that if the minister had it in hand, he would have taken some steps and fired the chair.
However, every time we raise issues like their billion-dollar green slush fund.... One of the individuals, who voted in the self-dealing way to enrich companies that they had an interest in, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, they appointed to the Infrastructure Bank.
When I asked the infrastructure minister the other day, he said he didn't know about that individual. When I pressed him about whether that individual should be serving on the infrastructure board—the government that claimed it would be the most transparent in history—his deputy leans over to him and says that the individual resigned in April, weeks ago.
I encourage you to take a scan of the Infrastructure Bank's website for that announcement—it's not there. At every turn that there's accountability demanded of this NDP-Liberal government, they take extraordinary steps to make sure they're not held to account.
You'll hear, when we talk about their legacy after nine years, the response is that if we think they're bad, we should have seen the last guys. They still want to talk about a previous government as if the legacy that they've presided over isn't.... They don't own it—they're victims.
We've heard a lot lately that things are pretty bad and that when they find out who's in charge they're really going to give it to them. The call is coming from inside the House, and the opposition—the official opposition at least—put forward motions and proposed measures that are in line with our role to hold them accountable, to hold the NDP-Liberal government accountable, but this motion from Mr. Bains calls for.... It pronounces on falsehoods without saying what they are. I'll reference the text of the motion exactly: “false and defamatory statements”.
It just wants members, on the word of the member for Steveston—Richmond East, on the word of Mr. Bains, to just assume that everything that the Conservative member said was false and misleading and he should apologize for all of it. There's no list. He doesn't itemize what he claims to be false, and he doesn't detail evidence to the contrary. I think that's quite telling.
I think it's quite telling. We further saw at this committee when the trade minister, Minister Ng, had been found guilty of breaking ethics laws, like Justin Trudeau was found guilty of breaking ethics laws, like then minister Bill Morneau was found guilty of breaking ethics laws, like Minister Dominic LeBlanc was found guilty of breaking ethics laws, like Liberal Greg Fergus.... There's a pattern there with Liberals and their inability to follow the ethics guidelines of this place.
We saw opposition from the government, instead of having transparency just addressing the issue head-on. It's been pronounced on by an independent officer of Parliament. They don't want that kind of transparency. They don't want to talk about their trade minister Ng, who gave sweetheart deals worth tens of thousands of dollars to her bestie, but every time we say their names, they say, “Oh my goodness, you can't say our names as if we're responsible for the actions of people outside of this place.”
Let me be crystal clear that when people engage with elected officials, like when you engage with your neighbour—because that's what parliamentarians are, members of a community; we are someone's family; we're somebody's neighbours—I sincerely hope that people don't walk out their front door and scream profanities at their neighbours, and I would expect the same when they're expressing themselves to elected officials.
I won't say that people shouldn't express themselves, because of course our right as Canadians is to do that, but we are part of a society and we need to make sure that we do it in such a way that.... Are we looking for dialogue, or are we simply looking to intimidate someone? I would say that screaming expletives at someone could serve as intimidation, and that's not acceptable, and that's why we have rules in this place. It's so we don't do that.
Putting forward motions that are germane to the issues that our committee is dealing with is not intimidation, though. When we're dealing with questions of foreign interference at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics; when there is national media; when judges are speaking about allegations of election interference in specific ridings; and when the government decides to put a member who is from one of those ridings on a committee that's dealing with that study, should we just not talk about it? “Jeez Louise, we can't talk about Steveston—Richmond East, because the member for Steveston—Richmond East is on the committee. We'll talk about foreign interference that may or may not have affected Steveston—Richmond East after the next election. We'll just hope”—because the NDP doesn't want to see expeditious passage of foreign interference legislation that would help us combat that by foreign state actors, like the dictatorship in Beijing—“that it doesn't reoccur.”
That's absurd. We have an obligation as members to create a space where we can actually do our job without finding ourselves in an area that could be a conflict. If there's that perception of a conflict, or if the individual feels like they might be conflicted and it hits a little too close to home, well, maybe they should come and give witness testimony and not be questioning the witnesses.
When we have an individual come before a committee to allege that the riding they held as an elected member and then lost in an election...and then the individual they lost to is examining their evidence in the meeting, I would just expect that all individuals involved from all parties who ran, including the individual who won in any of those ridings that are in question, would appear as witnesses and wouldn't cross-examine the other individuals who are alleging, in some cases, that members were elected in part because of foreign interference tactics by state actors.
We find ourselves in a situation that I feel could have been avoided. All members, when we have a full complement of the 338 who are elected, or the 343 after the next election, are associate members of all the standing committees of the House. Then we have regular members. I know that people will say “permanent” member. No one is a permanent member. Members can attend any committee meeting, even members who are not from parties who have recognized standing on the committee. Independent members can attend. They just can't vote.
If two associate members, two non-regular members of this standing committee, from the official opposition attend, they are able to sit at the table. They are able to make interventions. They are able to question witnesses. They are able to raise points of order. They are not able to vote unless a substitution has been made to the clerk. If a regular member of the committee is in the room, they can't be substituted in to vote for that member, even if a substitution request has been made to the clerk.
I have not been here for a long time. I've been elected for a little over five years. I was elected in December 2018, but I know the rules. Even the other day I had a Liberal parliamentary secretary challenge that I was able to question one of their ministers. They interrupted my questioning of a minister: “Is he even allowed to be here? Is he allowed to ask questions? I'm counting enough Conservatives at the table. All the regular members are there.”
He can't really be allowed to ask a minister, a cabinet minister, questions. Imagine that Leeds—Grenville sent their man to Ottawa, and he was able to ask a Liberal cabinet minister questions and hold him accountable. Of course I can, and of course we're going to do that.
I heard it from a different parliamentary secretary in the House during debate, who challenged to the Speaker my ability to ask a question that wasn't on the prepared notes that he got from his minister in an adjournment proceeding. It's absurd.
It's absurd that the NDP-Liberal government thinks that the official opposition is going to sit quietly while they run roughshod over our democracy and over Canadians. We were sent here to represent Canadians, to represent our constituents but also to represent the interests of people from across our great country.
After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, a lot of Canadians are frustrated and upset, and a lot of them are lined up at food banks, in record numbers. A lot of them are worried about being able to pay their mortgage or their rent. A lot of them are struggling to access the health care they need. A lot of them are seeing drugs, and disorder on the streets that they couldn't have imagined nine years ago. We're going to come here every single day, and we are going to hold this NDP-Liberal government to account. We are going to challenge them. If they cobble enough votes together with other parties, well, such is democracy.
People will ask: Well, you raised that issue, and you demonstrated at committee or you demonstrated in the House that the government failed or that they broke the rules or, in some cases, broke the law. Well, what's the consequence?
Well, in a democracy the consequences come from voters at the ballot box. Our job is the exposition of corruption and failure after nine years of Justin Trudeau and his NDP-Liberal government. That's what we're going to do. We're going to expose it.
Then in the next election, which is probably going to come a little later than most would hope because the leader of the NDP, Mr. Singh, is really holding out for that pension, Canadians are going to cast their ballots, and they're going to decide. In the meantime, we're going to move motions. We're going to move motions that are germane to the work of the standing committees that we sit on. Sometimes we're going to move motions at standing committees that we're associate members of, even if the parliamentary secretaries don't like it, even if the Prime Minister's Office doesn't like it, because it's our job.
Just like that's our job, we have a motion in front of us from Mr. Bains that makes allegations. I would encourage him to hold up a mirror when he talks about tactics that are attempting to silence people because it looks to me that in fact what he is doing is exactly what he is alleging Mr. Brock has done. It's a vexatious attempt to silence critics of a corrupt government, and Conservatives will not abide it.
Thank you, Chair.