Debates of Oct. 20th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Special committee on anti-corruption

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her remarks. I know a few people in her riding, so I know that she plays a very active role there, and I thank her for that, too. We are all working to improve the lives of Canadians and, in my colleague's case, Quebeckers.

We are here to do our job and, as parliamentarians, that job is to hold this government to account. We have to make sure that government members manage public funds properly. Unfortunately, as we have seen in recent weeks and months, they believe public money should be used to help families and groups with ties to the Liberal Party.

The hon. member for Durham and leader of the official opposition was absolutely right when he said earlier that we are here to fight the coronavirus as well as the Liberal corruption virus.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate speech.

The NDP has always been in favour of getting to the bottom of the WE Charity scandal. We have a duty and responsibility as parliamentarians to scrutinize the government's spending and ethics.

The Liberals are so addled that during a recent filibuster in committee, a Liberal member said that only the Ethics Commissioner had the power to determine who is considered the Prime Minister's mother and brother. The Liberals were trying so hard to hide the truth that they were disputing the definition of family members and hiding behind the Ethics Commissioner's supposed authority to define who is considered a mother and brother of the Prime Minister.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this. How mixed up are the Liberals, and how hard are they trying to obfuscate this issue?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my NDP colleague. I knew that the Liberals were doing everything they could to obstruct the work of the committees, but I did not know that they had stooped to such ludicrous depths. Honestly. I think that everyone knows who the Prime Minister's father, mother and brother are. We do not need the Ethics Commissioner to tell us that. It just shows how completely out of touch the Liberals are with the reality right in front of them.

I am pleased to see that all the opposition parties seem to have the exact same position as we do. We want to investigate. The one does not impede the other. The parliamentary committees will do their job. During question period, we will do our job. We will do our job as parliamentarians by studying bills and asking the government questions about the pandemic every day. We are also responsible for checking the facts, and that is why the opposition parties are proposing to set up a committee that will focus on this government's mismanagement of public funds.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, to start things off, I will list a number of points that are important as we continue to debate this today.

First, it is important to recognize that the government does consider this to be a matter of confidence, because the House cannot establish a committee looking into government corruption and, at the same time, claim it still has confidence in the government. Additionally, the motion is nothing more than a blatant partisan proposal that seeks to paralyze the government at a time when the entire government should be focused on keeping Canadians safe and healthy during this second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Second, we cannot have committees finding public servants in contempt without even providing them the opportunity to explain why they made lawful redactions to a small number of items within more than 5,000 documents released to the finance committee.

Third, we cannot turn our committees into partisan tools to force private citizens to release personal financial information. Where would that end?

Fourth, we cannot have Conservatives drowning the government in requests for documents and arbitrary deadlines that are designed to be impossible to meet, forcing public servants to drop their work on supporting Canadians during this pandemic.

Fifth, the Conservative motion is just proposing more political games. It is not a serious effort to examine all the areas of pandemic spending.

Sixth, Canadians want their politicians to work together in this pandemic, not throw mud at each other.

Seventh, we have proposed a path forward for this Parliament with a serious committee that will do serious work.

Eighth, we do not want an election. Canadians do not want an election. We have important legislation before the House, including MAID, conversion therapy and sexual assault training for judges, and legislation upcoming on wage subsidy, rent support and the Canada emergency business account.

Finally, I would hope all parties will work with us in support of Canadians.

I wanted to highlight these items, prior to my responding to some of the things I have heard from both the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative opposition House leader, because I think they are really important.

To start, the leader says we need to evaluate why we are here in the first place. I would suggest the leader is right. We are here in this House because Canadians have bestowed upon us their trust and confidence. When I say “we”, I am referring to every member of Parliament, no matter what side of the House they sit on. Each and every one of us has a responsibility to our constituents.

If the Conservatives were to consult, as we have been and as, I believe, most members of Parliament have been with their constituents, they would find the number one concern facing our country today is the coronavirus. What we can do collectively in order to fight the coronavirus and protect the health and well-being of Canadians, while at the same time protecting our economy, is the priority in Canada today.

What we hear, day in and day out, from the Conservative Party is the issue with WE. Opposition members want to say it is this huge mountain of corruption. I have been in opposition for many years, and boy they sure can make something look awfully big. I would suggest that, in comparison with other administrations, it is very minimal. It is something a committee could deal with along with all the other things that are done at the House of Commons.

The leader of the Conservative Party said to reflect. I suggest that Conservative members of Parliament need to realize that the track they took in 2015 of character assassinations of politicians on the government side is wrong. I suggest that they put that on hold and start dealing with what our constituents want us to deal with, and that is fighting the pandemic.

What is interesting is that, whether they are in non-profit organizations or governments of different levels, indigenous people or private individuals, people across our country not only recognize but also understand the importance of working together. The only group of people that seems to be so focused on being a destructive force is the Conservative Party of Canada.

For example, its members talk about WE. The leader said WE is an extension of the Liberal Party. Let me tell the leader of the Conservative Party that the WE organization got an annual grant from the Manitoba government. The last time I looked, the Manitoba government was a Progressive Conservative government. That was an annual grant. That is hard to believe based on what the leader of the Conservative party has been saying.

My job is not defend WE. My job is to assure Canadians that, as much as the Conservative Party is so bloody focused on this issue, we are going to remain focused on the priority of Canadians, which is to combat the pandemic. We will work with those who want to work with us, and the list is endless, to ensure we are doing what is absolutely essential to protect the health and well-being of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, while at the same time working on our economy.

I have made reference in the past to what we have been able to do by working with Canadians. We have come up with some wonderful things out of nothing. On the other hand, the Conservatives criticize and black-mark our civil servants, yet it was those civil servants who put together and created the CERB program, which assisted millions of Canadians in every region of our country. It is the credibility of many of those same civil servants that is being called into question by the Conservatives.

In part, they are the same civil servants who put together programs such as the wage subsidy program. By listening to what members of Parliament from different political parties said, including many people from opposition parties, regarding the importance of our seniors, they developed programs that would assist our seniors. We have done that in different ways, such as a one-time payment to the GIS and OAS, which are retirement programs. I am especially proud of the GIS, which is for the poorest seniors in our country. We recognize the importance of and the need for additional expenditures.

This is the type of thing we should be talking about inside the House of Commons. The Conservatives want to make a change here. I hope they are not going to hoodwink our friends in the New Democratic Party, who have been very critical of the many government ideas and programs we have brought forward. I will not take that away from them. That is part of what they and the Conservatives should be doing as the opposition, which is to look for ways the government can improve the system and take advantage of the opportunity to communicate with ministers during a pandemic.

I find this motion, which I would classify as a confidence motion, to be amazing. The Conservatives should look at the details and read it thoroughly. It will take quite a while to read, because it is a very lengthy motion.

This all goes back to what it is the Conservatives have been up to for the last five years. They may as well not have had a change of leadership, because it is almost as if Stephen Harper is still here.

At the end of the day, the Conservative Party needs to get on track. It needs to put less attention on some issues and more attention on this issue, the issue of the pandemic. We are now well into the second wave.

I made reference to organizations. I had discussions with Folklorama, an organization I am very proud of. It is such an economic driver for the city of Winnipeg. It is an organization that really amplifies and embodies Canada's diversity. It does so much good for my city, and in fact, our country. It is the longest running multicultural ethnic event of this nature in North America, and someone once said to me of the world, which I suspect could be the case.

Folklorama has now been going on for over 50 years, but not this year. This year we did not have those two weeks of celebration of diversity, with displays of culture and heritage, entertainment in the forms of dance and song, or the gathering of hundreds of thousands of people in the city of Winnipeg to appreciate our diversity. The reason for that was the pandemic.

The Government of Canada, through the wage subsidy program, was able to assist Folklorama. This is one organization. Some of its members said they were not sure if it would be able to survive this year because of the pandemic.

Another great program is 211. We finally have a national 211 program in Canada because of funding that in part came from Ottawa. Obviously it is also the United Way and some wonderful people. I think of Ms. Walker in particular, who did a fantastic job in advocating for 211. Now there is an Internet presence, and most importantly, a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week phone line that can be accessed from anywhere in Canada, from what I understand. By calling 211, people can access all sorts of different programs.

Those are the types of things having a positive impact on real people in all of our communities. I remember months ago talking with the United Way about the program and how important it was to try to incorporate it to its fullest extent in the province of Manitoba. I was so pleased the other week when we finally saw it come to fruition.

There are endless examples of small businesses that are here today because of the support they received from the government. I reference the CERB program. Disposable income that Canadians rely on day in, day out is absolutely critical. That particular program, which came from nowhere and is a direct result of the pandemic, was there for over eight million Canadians. It allowed them to purchase the groceries they needed. It allowed them to get the things that were important to their lives.

On co-operation and recognizing how important the pandemic is, we have been working with provinces. I believe the amount was over $19 billion for the safe restart program. The Government of Canada worked with provincial and territorial jurisdictions in order to ensure we have in place what is important to help us all get through a second wave.

Liberals understand, and I like to think most members of Parliament understand, why we need to be here. We get criticized for proroguing the session. Let me remind members that there was an agreement by the majority of the House when we rose earlier this year that we would come back on September 23. We had agreed to that. We also agreed that we would sit, albeit in committee of the whole, on the floor of the House during the summer. We would have to go back to 1988 to find the last time the House of Commons sat in July and August.

When we were sitting here, I had never before witnessed the opportunity for opposition parties to contribute to policy development for the Government of Canada, never. They had the opportunity not just to ask one question and a supplementary question. They had five-minute slots. We were going for well over two hours, during which hundreds of questions were being asked by opposition and government members of ministers to try to influence policy.

There were more days that we sat in the summer than we lost because of prorogation. Prorogation is utilized, even in the province of Manitoba. Here is a bit of hypocrisy. How can a Conservative member of Parliament criticize proroguing a session, especially if the member is from Manitoba, when the Manitoba government prorogued its session? Go figure. Yes, there is a pandemic in Manitoba, too. It is across Canada. Yes, WE does get money from the Province of Manitoba, too.

The point is that the Conservatives will do whatever they can to twist things. The opposition House leader said the Prime Minister has been investigated by the commissioner more than any other prime minister. We hear that every so often. It was Stephen Harper who established the commissioner. How stupid a comment from the Conservative Party saying the Prime Minister is the worst.

I have far more faith in the commissioner than I do in the official opposition, far more faith, the reason being that the Conservatives obviously have a bias. They have demonstrated that bias since the day after the Liberals were elected five years ago, five years plus a day. Five years ago, the Conservatives started their character assassination and they have not stopped since. Why should people believe what the Conservative Party has to say on the issue of corruption?

Do members recall the Senate scandal during the Stephen Harper government? Do they know how many people were linked to the PMO during the Senate scandal? That is where there was a payout. If we really think about it, the commissioner is there to ensure that the political partisanship we see from the Conservative Party is put to the side and we stick to the facts. The facts on that issue are that it was public civil servants who made the recommendation.

I see my time has expired. I would ask for leave to continue, but I expect the Conservatives would not want this continual barrage of reality.

At the end of the day, I am hopeful that members will see the Conservative interference in the House of Commons, which is having a negative impact on Liberals being able to do what we need to do with regard to fighting the coronavirus that is impacting every region of our country.

That is what Canadians want us to be focused on. That is what the government will continue to be focused on.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased when the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is giving speeches, because it offers me an opportunity to do penance and to offer up my suffering here in the hopes of reducing my time in whatever comes next. I am glad that he took 20 minutes. I would have been happy to give him leave for more time to earn more time off from purgatory.

The member has such faulty logic. All along there are just too many holes. I know some of my colleagues want to ask questions, too, so I will not litigate, point for point, all of his logical fallacies.

However, on his idea that focusing and asking questions about this corruption scandal is somehow doing Canadians a disservice, the member is missing the point. It is his party and his Prime Minister that used the pandemic to reward their friends. It is his party that, when Canadians were scared about their health and worried about their financial well-being, took the time to stop and make sure their friends were compensated, that they got a share of the big bucks that were rolling out of the Prime Minister's Office.

That is what this investigation is about: holding a government accountable that would use a pandemic, an unprecedented time in Canadian history, to give itself massive amounts of power and then pay off its well-connected friends. That is what this investigation is about. That is why Canadians deserve to get answers on the WE corruption scandal.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the former leader of the Conservative Party, what balderdash. That is just not true. I do not believe for a moment that, in this pandemic, the billions of dollars being spent is about rewarding Liberals. I do not believe that for a moment.

What I do believe is that the billions of dollars spent have been spent in order to support Canadians in all regions of our country in a very real and tangible way.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was fantastic. I appreciated the speech by my hon. colleague across the way.

When it was time to get to the bottom of the scandals involving the Mulroney government, the Liberals had some questions, and rightly so.

When the Harper government was involved in scandals, the Liberals wanted to get to the bottom of them, and rightly so.

When the sponsorship scandal erupted, the Bloc wanted to get to the bottom of it, and rightly so.

My hon. colleague said we are being partisan because we would dare try to get to the bottom of a scandal involving the Prime Minister. He said so vigorously and passionately. I actually have to tip my hat to my hon. colleague, because in doing so, he is the one reaching new heights of partisanship. I would even say that his speech was the Himalayas of partisanship.

I listened to my hon. colleague and I must say, I do not know how he does it. I just said I had to tip my hat to him.

This is what I want to know: As a representative of the people, how can he defend the indefensible?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it might be because, in the last 30 years, I have had the opportunity to be in opposition for the vast majority of those years, over 20 years. I am hoping to do the same number of years on the government side, but one never knows. It is Canadians who will make that determination.

At the end of the day, opposition parties do have a choice and it is about where they spend their time. Who am I to tell the Bloc or the NDP or the Conservatives where they should spend their time?

Much like the opposition parties hold the government accountable for what we do, I believe I also have a responsibility to hold the opposition parties accountable, and in particular, the Conservative opposition. I believe the Conservatives are doing a disservice to Canadians by spending so much time on one issue and foregoing a lot of discussion they could be having in regard to what is on the minds of all Canadians: the pandemic.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of April, the Prime Minister made a promise to the people of Canada. That was when he used to come out from his house every day and say what he was going to do. He made a promise on April 8 that he would help university students, and he broke it.

Once it became clear that a group that was tied to his family financially would get an unprecedented amount of money, between $500 and $900 million, when no other options were put on the table because it was there from the get-go, writing the plans with key Liberal ministers, what did the Prime Minister do? He pulled that money away from university students. They still have not received a thing.

That member has the gall to stand in the House and talk about how much his government cares about the pandemic, while threatening members of Parliament with an election if we do not kowtow to the Prime Minister and his government. They sent a letter to our committee telling us that we did not have the right to talk about our privileges as members of Parliament and that they would force an election.

Do not give me any of this hypocrisy about how the Liberals actually care about people in a pandemic when, to protect the Prime Minister in an investigation, he is willing to go to the polls during the worst economic, financial and medical catastrophe in a century rather than having the decency to answer questions of parliamentarians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to this specific program, it is important to recognize that a suite of programs was made available to support students in university and college, and students in general. For example, we saw the enhancement of the summer youth employment program. Many initiatives were taken.

The member is referring to one initiative. If time allowed, I would welcome the opportunity to continue to expand on it.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Western Economic Diversification Canada) and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change (Canada Water Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the speeches of the member for Winnipeg North for some 33 years. He gets more eloquent every year. Of course, we are both from Manitoba. I am the member for Winnipeg South and just yesterday our public health officer announced that our caseload was 122 cases per 100,000 people. That is the nation's hot spot or certainly one of the hot spots. We are very concerned. The chief public health officer here is bringing in new measures.

I wonder if the member for Winnipeg North could provide a few reflections on his community of Winnipeg. What is he hearing from residents? What is he hearing from small business? I know this is Small Business Week and many of our small businesses are hanging on by their fingernails. Why will this motion paralyze the government and prevent us from serving our citizens? Maybe the member has a final few reflections—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg South has highlighted just how important it is to recognize that we are in a second wave. The expectations are just as great, if not greater, than what they were over the last number of months.

Our constituents in certain sectors are very nervous. One can appreciate that, with kids going to school and individuals uncertain about their employment. There is a great deal of concern in the city of Winnipeg as we watch the numbers every day.

I want to assure the residents of Winnipeg North and all Canadians that no matter what is thrown at us from the Conservative Party, we will remain focused on the people of Canada.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I continue to hear the member's speeches and I am a little bit outraged. He is asking us to work together, but to work together to cover up Liberal corruption. It is the same Liberal Party that was here back in the scandale des commandites. It seems that nothing has changed over there.

We saw the Liberal government shut down Parliament and put in place a committee that would only work on one thing, the pandemic. I like all members are here to do our jobs, and we can do more than one thing at one time.

Will the member please support this motion so our health committee, finance committee and other committees can get back to work? Canadians deserve a Prime Minister that can walk and chew gum; do more than one thing at one time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that if we look at this motion, it is a motion of confidence. I hope people will take the time to read the details of it.

We need to be focusing our attention on what is the primary priority of all Canadians, and that is fighting the pandemic and doing what we can to keep Canadians healthy, safe and our economy in a good position.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you nearly caught me off guard because it is my oldest son's birthday, so I was thinking about something for him. However, I will get back to these very serious matters.

We are debating a motion, moved by the Conservatives, based on a principle that we support right off the bat, that is, to shed light on the key issues that smack of scandal that accumulated during the second term of this Liberal government led by the member for Papineau. The desire to call out this government is undeniable, but this is more about getting to the bottom of these issues and the errors in judgment that keep piling up one on top of the other. This needs to happen. However, it might also be appropriate to suggest areas of reflection, possible solutions, improvements and ways to tighten things up.

What we would have liked is not to allow the government to sweep the WE affair under the rug by proroguing Parliament, changing the subject, and coming back with a throne speech which essentially had no substance and which should be followed by some hopefully meaningful economic measures. I have to say, so far, it has worked relatively well. The WE affair is much less in the news than it was before Parliament was prorogued, but that is unacceptable, because Quebeckers and Canadians cannot remain in the dark and ignorant about so important an issue.

Seeing what was coming, the Liberals strategically decided to introduce a motion that was essentially intended to sidestep the problem. The Liberals decided to introduce a motion that would address all of the financial issues relating to the pandemic, but these are two entirely different things.

The fact is that the Canadian government committed hundreds of millions of dollars to fight the effects of the pandemic. We are up to around $325 billion. That is one thing. It certainly deserves a careful examination by Parliament, which is tasked with protecting the interests, in particular the financial interests, of Quebeckers and Canadians. However, the government’s unacceptable ethical behaviour is quite another thing. These are repeated and serious instances of misconduct, of which this is one example.

It seems that the Prime Minister wanted to help a friendly, albeit not-for-profit, organization, an organization that had such serious governance issues that the directors were resigning in droves, an organization that awarded $250,000 in contracts to the Prime Minister’s mother, some $30,000 to his brother and tens of thousands of dollars in expenses to his wife. The former minister of finance benefited from $41,000 in trips. In a sort of admission in which he did not want to admit that he was admitting anything, the Prime Minister threw his finance minister under the bus.

We agree, and we immediately said so to avoid having the exercise turn into a mudslinging contest. The Prime Minister’s family is not politically active. We respect that. Now, we need to shed light on the matter. I am not saying that it was one rather than the other, but we immediately agreed with the principle because my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord also made a proposal similar to the one in this motion.

With dramatic flair, the Liberals finally decided that they were going to force a confidence vote. I will say right away that they have probably already finagled and squirrelled away the NDP’s vote, but one has to keep up appearances. They will have to say that they acted correctly in the WE affair. Otherwise, there will be a general election. The entire exercise is ridiculous, because we do not believe it for a second.

However, if the Liberal government thinks it is a good time for it to call an election, we do not. If the Prime Minister thinks it is a good idea for strategic reasons, and if he is so afraid of what a more in-depth investigation will show, let him grow a spine, even if that is not his specialty, or let him go see his pal the Governor General and call an election. He should not try to blame his own strategic calculations on the legitimate opposition parties, whose members were elected just as the government’s members were. A spine is a good thing to have. We can lend him one.

There is something truly distasteful about this challenge. The government is asking us to condone inexcusable behaviour, to say it was all okay. Otherwise, it will call an election. It wants to blackmail Parliament so that it can be cleared of all serious ethical misconduct. Quebeckers are honest and intelligent people. My response to the government’s blackmail is, “Don’t even think it!”

We intended to vote with the Conservatives on this motion, and we will vote with the Conservatives. If the agreement between the Liberals and the NDP still stands after that, the Liberals will remain in power. If not, we will find ourselves in the middle of an election campaign. For those who do not think it is a good idea, that is the Liberals’ problem. It is their choice, their fault, and they will have to bear the responsibility.

Clearly the system does not work very well when it comes to ethics. The Prime Minister was given a trip worth about $50,000 as a gift from his friend the Aga Khan. He broke the rules and intervened directly in a matter under the responsibility of the Department of Justice. Remember that we are in the age of “Liberalist, part A.” In fact, today we have the “Liberalist, part B,” which tell us that, if someone wants to be appointed a judge, they will be better off planting a Liberal Party sign on their lawn or writing a $15 cheque to the Party than having a distinguished legal career. We have had enough. These decisions must be based on fair, relevant and helpful criteria that serve the public interest.

Obviously, there is the WE Charity. There is also—some may have forgotten this—the wage subsidy and the fact that the Liberal Party pocketed some $800,000 earmarked for struggling businesses. The businesses are still struggling, and the Liberals still have not paid back the $800,000. I must point out that the Conservatives have given back what they took. We in the Bloc Québécois never even applied for the subsidy, because we are funded by citizens who believe that what we do is fair, good and legitimate, including striving for independence.

Lastly, let us recall—we forget this all too often as well, although it is perhaps the most important example—that the spouse of the Prime Minister’s chief of staff is vice-president of a company that was awarded an $84-million contract. That is a lot, but, for reasons I cannot understand, it has not garnered much interest.

In any case, it directly implicates the Prime Minister or the PMO. The system is not working. We are faced with the classic Liberal arrogance, the belief that power belongs, almost by divine right, to the Liberals. It is not surprising that Canada is still hung up on the monarchy.

However, our system does not work that way. Power belongs to the electorate.

Therefore, we have the following situation. On at least five occasions, the Prime Minister or members of his immediate entourage made serious ethical mistakes. The Prime Minister gets away with it by shedding a tiny tear that would not even wet the corner of a tissue before moving on to something else. Life is good.

That makes no sense. We therefore thought that the Ethics Commissioner should be given some teeth. His decisions have to smart, they have to hurt. They have to give pause to those who lack the good sense to do the right thing for the right reason. If that means they must be punished by sending them to the corner and taking away their dessert, that is what we will do.

I do not wish to present legislation to Parliament, because we are not at that point, but I do have some food for thought. I present to the House for its considered judgment four ideas that we could debate quickly, as the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that it is possible to act quickly when there is the will to do so.

First, when the mistake is quantifiable and the individual is found to be at fault, the value of the mistake must be automatically repaid. For example, the Prime Minister was pleased that the finance minister repaid $41,000, and yet, the Prime Minister owes $50,000. Let's start with that.

If the Ethics Commissioner finds someone at fault, they can use their discretion and impose a fine of up to $10,000. That will give pause.

The Ethics Commissioner could recommend fines above $10,000 to Parliament, which is completely sovereign. Parliament would vote on whether to approve that fine. The Ethics Commissioner could also recommend that Parliament temporarily suspend the parliamentary privileges of any member found at fault. The higher the member is in the hierarchy, the higher the standard they are held to. The pyramid is currently reversed, and the highest level is the worst.

Lastly, immediate family members, such as children, spouses, parents, and siblings, would be considered the same as the member of Parliament, in terms of ethics. There would no longer be any distinction between the two. If this were enforced retroactively, it would obviously sting some people. That is not what I am asking for. I want us to think of this as a way to issue penalties that are serious enough that even the worst examples, and I will not name any since I am not allowed to under the Standing Orders, will have to think twice, even though that does not seem like a house specialty. If these rules had been around in 2015, I think the Prime Minister would have thought twice. If he wants to trigger an election, I think he should also think twice.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the leader of the Bloc Québécois is bang on. In Quebec there is a long memory. We all remember the sponsorship scandal and this idea of kickbacks, where favoured companies and favoured individuals seemed able to funnel money back either to individual Liberals or to the organization. It is an extremely dangerous situation right now. It is almost as if history is repeating itself.

Why is it so important that we move forward with this committee so that Parliament can get on with the business that Canadians would like to see parliamentarians do? Does he think this is a reason to have an election, or is it important that we get our work done?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague.

I will start with the last question.

We are in the middle of a pandemic, in the middle of a second wave that may be followed by a third, and we are not sure what is coming after that. This is obviously not the best time to trigger an election.

I heard the bombastic but occasionally likeable leader of the government say that I wanted to trigger an election. No. We wanted to defend our position and condemn a throne speech that was an insult to Quebec for a thousand and one good reasons, rather than condone it by voting for it. This is not the best time, but the question is always the same: Which is the lesser of two evils? Is it better to allow His Majesty the Prime Minister to do whatever he wants, however he wants and whenever he wants, to the detriment and at the expense of Quebeckers and Canadians, or is it better to say that he needs to be taught a lesson?

That is the fundamental question. If management improves afterwards, and if, supposing he is re-elected, someone is there to give him a rap on the knuckles and tell him that he can be replaced, that might not be a bad thing.

We need to examine the fundamental issues. On the issue of elections, I must say that I would prefer not to have one, but we may have no choice.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was leader of the third party, a position the leader of the Bloc has now, he came up with the idea of proactive disclosure. I recall sitting right behind where the leader is right now when we were trying to get unanimous support for this. We never did get unanimous support, but the leader of the Liberal Party at the time, our Prime Minister, instructed all Liberal MPs to live by proactive disclosure with regard to members' office expenditures. It took a little while, but eventually the Conservatives came onside. They were shamed into coming onside.

If the member opposite has ideas that he believes Parliament would be better off to adopt, there are forums where they could be brought in. He could do what the leader of the Liberal Party did in the past and impose them upon his own respective caucus to see if they will grow, or he could raising them at a committee meeting.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, proactive disclosure is always a good thing in principle. However, when a governing party wants to vote against a motion aimed at investigating a matter and revealing the truth, it is clear that its members are not big fans of proactive disclosure.

More generally, if the government is against something ethics-related, it must be a good idea.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned a number of historical events of wrongdoing that we would want to investigate. They were not that long ago.

I wonder if the member agrees with me that the WE Charity scandal fades compared with the allegations of obstruction of justice in the SNC-Lavalin matter. Would we not want to investigate the efforts to block the RCMP investigation? It was before last year's election, but this is not that long ago.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some mornings, it takes a little longer to really wake up than others. This morning, it did not take long at all. When I read the Radio-Canada piece about liberalism, part two, I was instantly awake and furious. None of this makes one bit of sense. These people believe they can do whatever they want.

When Canada's Liberal Prime Minister is best compared to the former Liberal premier of Quebec, who probably sent post-it notes by express post, there is clearly an ethics problem. We have to get to the bottom of this. People have to be able to judge for themselves.

Is some sort of commission of inquiry really the best way to go? It would be problematic because the government has a minority. The clock is ticking, but there is not much time left. Such a commission's report would not come out until well after what looks like an impending election. Things need to happen faster.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I might ask the member for Beloeil—Chambly why his party made the odd decision, not once but twice, to go easy on the Liberals at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics by agreeing to adjourn. These are typical Bloc Québécois tactics.

If the Liberal government is okay with proroguing Parliament, obstructing the work of two parliamentary committees by filibustering all night long, and threatening to call an election, then probably the Liberal government is in more trouble than we thought with WE Charity.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised to hear the NDP member's concern for the Liberal government. The two parties are so close.

Our tactics are up to us. The difference between the NDP's tactics and ours is that we in the Bloc Québécois choose our own tactics. The New Democrats get theirs dictated by the other side of the House, but that is their choice.

I do not think it is because the government is in that much trouble. Someone is definitely in trouble, but it is not the government. It can save its skin by either using the NDP as a prop or saying that, if an election is called, it is the opposition parties' fault. It is not a bad strategic position to be in.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question.

After everything we have heard, could our leader please take a moment to explain to our future voters, with his usual eloquence and clear language, what is happening in the government in terms of public trust in relation to the pandemic?