House of Commons Hansard #15 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was liberals.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, people in my riding have been contacting my office to say they are struggling with the transition from CERB to EI, or to the other benefits. Some of them have been without income because the government prorogued Parliament, shutting it down when Canadians needed the government the most. Some were not able to reach the CRA this weekend because of scheduled maintenance. The Liberals do not seem to have planned ahead to take care of these people, and I can only imagine how worried my constituents are to hear the Liberals threatening an election only a year after the last election and in the middle of a pandemic.

What does the member think? How can the Liberals stand behind this kind of lack of accountability, secretiveness and what is looking more and more like corruption from a government that is working for wealthy and well-connected friends when Canadians just want them to be working for Canadians?

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question.

That does indeed reveal just how much the government has been talking out of both sides of its mouth since the beginning of the pandemic. The Liberals keep telling us that it is important and a priority for them to do what Canadians want, in other words focus on managing the crisis, but the first thing they did was prorogue Parliament, before threatening to close it for good and call a general election.

How can we take care of our people if we do not have the chance to do our work properly? That also involves using our system of checks and balances, which helps verify what is happening on the government side and forces it to be accountable. Again, they are trying to stop us from doing that.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who has been very passionate and even taught us a few things during her speech.

We know that the important thing during a crisis, a health crisis or any other, is the public's trust in their government. For example, the economic programs that were put in place created a bond of trust between the public and the government.

However, does my colleague not think that the way the government is currently behaving has broken that bond of trust with the public?

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think that this trust has unfortunately been broken. It happened with every scandal that popped up like mushrooms over the summer, and we expect to see others.

Although we may not re-establish this trust, we can at least ensure that there will be no other such problems in the future. This requires us to be a little scrupulous and to search through government documents to see what was done and prevent this from happening again. In the end, we can make the government feel some shame for what it did.

However, this cannot be done in the context of an election. We must be able to work in committee to shed light on all of this and to ensure that, in future, the money is well spent and goes to the right place as quickly as possible.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be splitting my time today with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

I am happy to speak in this debate today. I am happy to speak period, because we do not know when the Liberal government is going to prorogue Parliament, suspend Parliament or call an election to stop parliamentarians from having a voice.

I am saddened, however, to be debating this specific motion, a motion to create a committee to examine the ongoing corruption of the Liberal government. Canada is in its second wave of COVID it seems, but we appear to be in our sixth or seventh wave of Liberal corruption. Let us review some of the items at hand.

The company of the husband of the Prime Minister's chief of staff was awarded a huge contract to administer the failed rent subsidy program. Let that sink in: $84 million was given to a company for which the husband of the Prime Minister's chief of staff was a senior executive. The Liberals will say that Katie Telford recused herself from the discussions, but anyone who has worked in the private sector, or even within government, knows that this is a false claim. She can recuse herself on paper, but the reality is that people working for her, people working in the government and people working below her will know she is in power, and their jobs and livelihoods depend on her. They are not going to step in the way. They are going to be influenced by her position.

Furthermore, her husband repeatedly lobbied the office of former finance minister Morneau to make tax changes to the wage subsidy program, changes that would have benefited his company and a few other companies. He was not a registered lobbyist, but he used the power of being married to the Prime Minister's chief of staff, who is basically the most powerful, unelected person in this country. Her husband used that power to lobby the finance minister's office.

Staff of the finance minister's office said they were very uncomfortable when dealing with them because they knew he was Telford's husband. This goes back to my comment that she recused herself. People in a position of power like this cannot just wash their hands by simply saying they recuse themselves, as very clearly shown by comments made by the former finance minister's staff.

We asked in the House, because we heard rumours, whether the husband of the Prime Minister's chief of staff personally lobbied the PMO. Did we get an answer? Of course not. It was a simple yes-or-no question. The very fact that the Liberals would not answer it leads us to conclude that he was involved and did do that.

Another issue at hand is ventilators. Former Liberal MP Frank Baylis received a contract for about a quarter of a billion dollars to build ventilators that, by the way, are not approved by any jurisdiction in Canada. Ventilators that normally cost $1,000 to $5,000 now somehow cost up to $24,000 each when being made by a Liberal. Again, they were not approved by any jurisdiction in Canada.

No doubt the Liberals would stand up and tell us not to worry, that this has since been approved. I find it remarkable that they can grant a contract worth a quarter of a billion dollars to buy unapproved ventilators, but at the same time have been repeatedly refusing to approve rapid testing kits for Canada. There is a special deal for a Liberal, but for rapid testing kits to get employees working and to protect seniors, no, let us not jump the gun; we cannot approve those. Perhaps if Frank Baylis's company would make rapid testing kits, we could get them into Canadians' hands.

It does not stop there with him. When he was on the industry committee, his company bid on a contract for a $400,000 grant. His company received that contract about a month and a half after the last election. The Liberals will say not to worry; he was not a member of Parliament at the time. However, when the contract was made available or posted for tender, Frank Baylis's company bid on the grant while he was on the industry committee.

Guess who had posted the grant and was deciding the grant. It was Industry Canada. We had a Liberal MP on the industry committee bidding on business being decided on by Industry Canada. This is the same Liberal MP who would have sat on that committee and voted yea or nay on the estimates for that department and whether it received funding. It is also the exact same Liberal MP who berated government employees about not making enough federal money available for research grants, the same grant his company eventually got, further lining the pockets of Liberals, the $400,000 for Frank Baylis.

There are other items.

There is the famous WE scandal; $900 million given to friends of the Liberal Party, sole-sourced of course. We all know WE was in financial trouble. Who comes in like the cavalry? It is the Prime Minister and the Liberals with $900 million of taxpayer money. This is the same WE that paid for that very cringeworthy election-style video for the Prime Minister a few years back; the same WE that paid the Prime Minister's mother tens of thousands of dollars in speaking fees and expenses; the same WE that paid the Prime Minister's brother tens of thousands of dollars to appear; the same WE that paid well over $100,000 to the Prime Minister's wife. Over a half a million of fees was paid out to the Prime Minister's family.

It is the same WE that gave a free vacation worth $40,000, violating ethics rules, for the former finance minister. Of course, Bill Morneau said that he forgot, that he did not see the invoice. Maybe it was sitting at his French villa and he got around to it later. It is the same WE that employed the finance minister's daughter, keeping in mind that the former finance minister and the Prime Minister were at the cabinet table when this money was approved. It is the same WE that gave non-stop promotional appearances to the Prime Minister.

Since then, we also now have the Liberals spending over 20 hours in various committees. blocking the release of various documents regarding the WE scandal. What it is about the Prime Minister and his government that leads to such non-stop corruption?

We had the Vice-Admiral Norman affair, where the former Treasury Board president, Scott Brison, interfered with a contract on behalf of the Irving family in order to scuttle a deal between National Defence and the Davie shipyard. It was not enough for Brison and the Liberals just to interfere with that contract; they went out and destroyed Vice-Admiral Norman's life. Imagine giving 38 years of his life to the defence of his country, just to have the Liberal government destroy his life merely for granting a contract.

We had the clam scam, where the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada directly interfered to give a lucrative clam deal to a paper company owned by a family member. Just to spread the corruption around, the company was also partly owned by a former Liberal MP and the brother of the current MP for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

We had the famous billionaire island visit, where the Prime Minister received a quarter-million dollar gift, basically from a lobbyist.

We had Liberal Raj Grewal using his role on the finance committee to lobby for rules to change investigations into legal gambling activities.

We had Lav scam, where the government interfered in a judicial process to grant special favours to a company being investigated for corruption.

It saddens me that we need a committee such as this to investigate corruption, but it is necessary for Canadians to have confidence in the government, confidence in the political process and confidence that elected officials will do what is best for Canadians, not just for well-placed Liberal hacks.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I think the member illustrated very clearly the differences. As a government, we want to be able to continue to focus on what is important and the priorities of Canadians. The Conservatives, for the last five years, have been solely focused on the issue of ethics. That is it.

There is a very good chance that there were some Liberals who received the CERB payment. Are the Conservatives going to go to those individuals who are Liberals and received CERB, because maybe they had a sign on their lawn? Maybe a business received the wage subsidy because it needed the support, and it might have been identified as Liberal. Whether for Conservatives, New Democrats or Greens, as a government, we were there for all Canadians in every way, and in a tangible way. No, it has not been perfect, but the Conservatives' pure focus is one of disruption of this chamber, and one of causing much frustration in dealing with one issue and one issue alone: ethics.

I wonder if the member could tell the House if he would be prepared to put some of the character assassination to the side during the pandemic so that the Conservatives, as the official opposition, could spend some time dealing with the pandemic.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Madam Speaker, I would like to tell my colleague that, just because there is a pandemic, it does not give rights to the government to be corrupt. This is a basic part of one's soul: whether one is honest or corrupt. A pandemic does not give the Liberal government the right to reach into the pockets of taxpayers and spread taxpayers' money around to their hacks and Liberal-connected people. It is disgraceful that the member would stand here and talk about ethics as if it is not an issue: “We do not need to be ethical. Look, there is a scandal. Oh, look away.” The member should be ashamed of himself.

We will stand for what is right. We will stand for truth. We will stand for ethical actions: not for corruption and not for covering up the corruption of the Liberal government.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, my colleague just talked about it. I believe that we need to remember the role of the opposition, whether or not there is a crisis. I would like him to comment on that.

It is because of the hard work of the opposition and the Bloc Québécois among others that the Liberal sponsorship scandal was discovered. It is important to condemn what happened in the sponsorship scandal. The role of the opposition is important and even more so in a context where the Liberal government seems to forget that it has a minority. Canadians gave the opposition a mandate to oversee the conduct and actions of this government. They did not have enough confidence in the government to give it a majority.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about those two points.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Madam Speaker, we have seen this repeatedly with the current government. Whenever it is challenged or caught, it likes to change the rules, and it is trying to do that now. If it does not like the Standing Orders of the House, it tries to ram through changes unilaterally without consultation with or the agreement of the other parties. If it does not like the House rules, it tries to change them. If it does not like investigations, it prorogues Parliament to stop them. If it does not like the debate, it threatens an election. None of this serves Canadians. Every action by the government serves one purpose, which is to serve the Liberals, not Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. I think the overreach the Conservatives are making with their motion is identifying that they are going after corruption and then naming people who have not been found guilty of anything. I know Frank Baylis. He is a well-connected Liberal. Whether or not this deal was right or wrong is something that belongs at committee, because we certainly need to get an answer. However, the idea that this was an act of corruption, and naming Frank Baylis in a parliamentary motion, I find very concerning as we do not have the evidence. It is the same with Rob Silver. I am very concerned about the calls he made. Personally, I think it stinks to high heaven, but the Ethics Commissioner said there was nothing wrong. For Parliament to say that these were acts of corruption, before we have done the investigation, to me is a serious mistake.

The one thing I have really been struck by is the dead silence from the Conservatives on the fact that I called for an investigation into David MacNaughton, and he was found guilty. David MacNaughton, who is a top Liberal insider and good friend of the Prime Minister, was found guilty. He works for a very powerful American company, Palantir, and is not being looked at, yet he had meetings with the Deputy Prime Minister, he had meetings with—

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

I have to give time to the hon. member for Edmonton West for a very short comment.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Madam Speaker, I appreciate where my colleague was going with this and I understand his concerns, but it is important that we have an opportunity to bring some of these issues to light. We have seen the Liberals shut down the ethics committee, the health committee and the finance committee. It is clear that any opportunity to look at any of their ethical breaches is going to be met with rule changes, election threats and filibustering. We need a committee to investigate these issues.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Madam Speaker, every time I give a speech in the House about a bill or a motion, I always rise to say that I am pleased to speak to a particular subject. Today, however, I cannot say that I am happy to speak. These are strange times we are living through.

This is the first time, in the history of the Parliament of Canada, in 150 years, that a government, regardless of stripe, has turned a general-interest motion into a confidence vote.

This motion is simply about creating a committee. It is not a confidence vote on a budget. All we want is a committee. The government is turning this situation into a confidence vote, knowing full well that this is a very bad time to trigger an election. There is a pandemic that we need to manage. We are here, debating in Parliament, but we cannot forget about the virus or forget that we are in the middle of the COVID-19 crisis.

We need to get back to basics and come back to the reason why we have a motion before us today, one that is very detailed and comprehensive, clear and true. That is the very serious problem facing our Liberal friends. They know full well that we are right, that the opposition parties—and I thank my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois for working with us on this issue—are not doing this just for fun or to waste time. We are not here to have fun.

We are very serious in our approach and we need to manage the decisions made by a government that is always up to something fishy. It never stops. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government even said so himself earlier when he mentioned that the Conservatives have been talking to them about ethics for five years. There must be a reason for that.

Why have we been bringing up ethical problems for five years? It is because the Liberals create ethical problems. There are two reports with the Trudeau name on them. A third is coming, which will likely be entitled “Trudeau III”. We are not making this up. These reports exist. They are there. These are the facts. Right now—

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member does have a right to reference the report but not to reference a sitting member's name.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

I am taking note of that. We will monitor the use of terms and names.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

There are already two reports bearing the Prime Minister's name and a third is on its way. I did not pull this out of thin air. These are facts.

There is one thing that bothers me. I am hearing the comments of people who live outside the Ottawa bubble, Canadians, Quebeckers, people who write to us and who watch at home. These people do not understand how this works.

To explain this to them in simple terms, what we are doing now is akin to a police investigation. We are gathering documents, asking questions, calling witnesses and questioning them. We did this in various committees, such as the finance, ethics and health committees. These committees are like separate police forces that are each conducting their own investigation.

What we are asking for is the creation of a temporary anti-corruption unit, to compare it to another existing organization that we are familiar with. The work of this unit would be to conduct this investigation because we are dealing with facts, facts that all of my colleagues have been talking about since the beginning of the day and that are set out in the motion, and they pertain to the WE Charity scandal, the relationship between the Prime Minister's family and the Kielburgers and what happened with Frank Baylis.

We have evidence, but we do not have enough information to take this any further. Obviously that is why the government is threatening to force an election. It does not want us to get to the bottom of things.

We are essentially telling the Canadians watching us, listening and trying to understand, that we are simply detectives trying to do our jobs. However, right now we understand the frustration that investigators feel when they encounter obstacles in their investigation or when they reach the end of the investigation only to find that no charges can be laid. All we want is the truth. We have enough clear elements here to justify what we are saying.

Earlier I heard the government leader tell Radio-Canada that we just want to shut down government operations. That is completely untrue. On the contrary, we want to free up the other committees so that they can continue their work, since there are votes to review and work to be done. This is work that we want to do, and that everyone wants to do.

We tend to forget that we are in the midst of a pandemic. There are not many of us here in the House, because we cannot all be here. There are empty benches around me, but there are 338 MPs. There are plenty of people available to deal with committees, and creating a new committee with 12 or 15 members would not pose a problem.

Some members are getting bored. They have been at home for six months now, waiting for this to pass. We could give them some work on this committee and no one would complain because that is why we are here. The questions the new committee will ask are the same ones the other three committees have already asked. We are proposing to put everything under a single umbrella, which is more efficient and faster and will help us get to the bottom of this, get our answers and close the case.

However, the government is well aware that it is in trouble for the umpteenth time. It has been in trouble for five years now, and it knows that. One day Canadians are going to hear this, they are going to see us and realize that the Conservatives and the Bloc were right, that those guys are really crooked and this has to stop.

The thing is, there is a pandemic and we all agree that we do not want a general election. If not for the pandemic, I would want to hit the campaign trail to put an end to this. However, we are reasonable, although that does not mean we do not want the truth.

We want to get to the bottom of things for Canadians' sake. Canadians are watching us, and we do not want them to think we are a bunch of clowns they are footing the bill for in Ottawa. That is not what they want.

People know that billions of dollars are at stake and have gone out the door and that there is patronage involved and so on. It is a lot of money. People pay their taxes every year, they send in their tax returns, and they know it will cost them a bundle. These people hope the money will be distributed intelligently, efficiently and for the right reasons, not to help out friends.

The Liberals have been doing this for a century. Every time the Liberals are in power, there is always a story involving their pals.

Even though I was not here at the time, I watched it unfold, like every other Canadian. We see this, and it makes us think of the sponsorship scandal and everything else.

There is a pattern with the Liberals: when they do something like this, they act like it is normal and not so bad. If a Conservative, Bloc or NDP MP had done the same thing, a storm would descend on them and would not stop until they were totally annihilated. When the Liberals do these things, it is not so bad. The parliamentary secretary says that we have been talking about ethics for five years and that it is time to put ethics aside because it is not important. The Liberals basically do not care about ethics.

On our side of the House, ethics are important, especially when it comes to managing public funds. We currently have a serious problem when it comes to the management of public funds, contracts and money handed out to friends. We simply have to get to the bottom of this.

This motion was not presented to force a confidence vote, but rather to organize Parliament's work, to efficiently create a committee that will finish off the investigation started by three or four other committees and produce a report. If, in the end, the report states that the Liberals did a good job, so much the better for them. If, however, the report states that the matter was botched and that the criticism is deserved, they will have to pay the price. That is all. We are just doing our job.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Outremont Québec

Liberal

Rachel Bendayan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business

Madam Speaker, I have to admit that I am flabbergasted. I heard the Conservative member say that there are members on his side of the chamber who have been twiddling their thumbs. I cannot believe my ears.

We in the Liberal caucus work 24 hours a day to support business owners, charities and families in need. We are in the midst of a pandemic. We should all be working in our ridings for our constituents.

I would like to know why the Conservatives do not agree with our proposal to create a committee that would examine all spending during the pandemic and that would be representative of all parties in the House.

They are proposing a committee that can study a whole host of issues and that does not adequately represent all parties in the House. I do not understand why the Conservatives will not accept our proposal to create a committee that could study all of our government's spending.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Madam Speaker, I agree that all members are working in their ridings to help their constituents. However, we have always had 25 weeks a year in Ottawa to do our parliamentary work. Whether we do our parliamentary work remotely or in person nowadays does not matter. There is a lot of time available for that even though we are working to help our constituents.

Our motion is different from what the Liberals are proposing. The Liberals are proposing something much broader to study all spending, and that should definitely be done.

However, what we want to do is specifically to examine the WE scandal, the Frank Baylis affair, and what happened with the husband of the Prime Minister's chief of staff. These are specific issues with some clear evidence, but some of the information is missing and the documents are redacted. That is what we need.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Madam Speaker, tomorrow is October 21, and I do not need to remind my colleagues what happened on that date last year.

I simply want to point out that it has been one year since the election and the government has yet to present a budget. We trusted the government with the extraordinary spending, since there were extraordinary circumstances. We trusted that these measures needed to be implemented. We even expanded and improved them. I think an apology is in order today.

Today's debate has to do with a committee that would keep looking into the WE scandal. The government does not want to debate the substance of the motion. It would rather talk about an election, which has nothing to do with this motion.

The purpose of the motion is to pick up where we left off. The debate on WE Charity is urgent and necessary, but the Liberal government wanted to put an end to it. We need to resume debate on this matter, and we owe it to the Quebeckers who were outraged about how this played out. We also owe it to all of the parliamentarians who need to get back to work. The Liberal government decided to suspend operations on August 18, in the hopes that this matter would be forgotten and to remind everyone that Canada is in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic is serious, but not so serious that we cannot debate creating a special committee to get to the bottom of the WE scandal.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her statement.

What matters is that we all agree on one thing: We need to get to the bottom of this. That is actually why the government is threatening to call an election. It is as simple as that.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, much like my colleague, I was surprised by what our colleague said. He said that MPs who are at home because of the pandemic are not doing anything. My colleagues and I are all working very hard. I was therefore surprised to hear my colleague's comments. I do not think members are working any less than they usually do.

My question is simple. The Parliament of Canada established the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to conduct independent investigations. Members of Parliament do not investigate one another. Canadians trust that office.

Why not simply let the commissioner's office conduct an independent investigation and let members take care of the other issues that affect all Canadians?

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

In Canada, we are lucky to have an Ethics Commissioner who has submitted reports on the Prime Minister on several occasions. Another one will be released shortly.

The work of the Ethics Commissioner is to verify matters of ethics. On our side, our work is to dig in and ask questions that go beyond the mandate of the Ethics Commissioner. That is the work we do in committee and in the House of Commons. This allows us to ask more in-depth questions.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Honoré-Mercier Québec

Liberal

Pablo Rodriguez LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I rise today at a time when millions of Canadians are struggling. Instead of discussing ways to help those Canadians, we are quibbling because the Conservatives want to create a partisan committee for political gain.

We have been transparent from day one. We provided the requested documents and key witnesses testified. We have collaborated throughout the entire process.

Last Sunday, 48 hours ago, we shared with opposition members a reasonable proposal for a serious committee to study all expenses related to COVID-19. One thing is clear to us all: The ball is now in their court.

Does the opposition realize that we are in the second wave of this COVID pandemic? Does it understand what is happening? More than 9,000 Canadians have lost their lives to this terrible virus. For the families and friends of these thousands of people, the impacts of this pandemic will stay with them forever. For those who have lost loved ones, 2020 will be remembered as an especially painful year, and we mourn their loss.

There is nothing in the motion put forward by the official opposition that we are debating, because they are forcing us to debate it today, that acknowledges this harsh reality. There is nothing. Conservatives are not talking about what Canadians are facing. It is pure politics.

It will be one year tomorrow, actually, since Canadians made their decision in an election about what they wanted in Ottawa. They elected a minority Parliament. They wanted MPs to collaborate and work together. They grew tired of political games and wanted MPs from all parties to work together on things that matter, the things that are important to Canadians. This became even more important when the COVID-19 pandemic hit earlier this year. Beyond the tragic impact on the health of Canadians, the economic consequences of the pandemic have been devastating for Canadians. Millions have lost their jobs.

People in their own communities need the government and this Parliament, as it is not only the responsibility of the government but of all parliamentarians, to stay focused and provide the supports they need. I can say that this is what we are doing on this side of the House.

Today we are seeing that the Conservatives do not care about that. They have shown that they do not care about it. They have turned their backs on Canadians. They do not care about working together to find solutions to the many challenges in this crisis. The only thing they care about, as they have shown today, is political games. The motion has absolutely nothing to do with asking serious questions on government policy in the middle of the pandemic. It is a self-serving political game. The Liberals have made it very clear that we will oppose it.

While the opposition is engaging in extreme partisanship and keeps making completely unfounded allegations, the government's job is to protect the health and safety of all Canadians, particularly the most vulnerable.

I am thinking here of the most disadvantaged members of our society, of those who have trouble making ends meet and of women, who often have to juggle many family responsibilities. That is not to mention young families and seniors, who have had it particularly rough in recent months.

In such circumstances, and as Canada goes through an unprecedented crisis, we must work together. It is our duty as a responsible government, but it is also the responsibility of each opposition member.

We must work together, particularly during this pandemic. That has been our government's approach throughout the pandemic and that has not and will not change. Our hand will always be outstretched. We are always ready to work with the opposition parties. That is not just talk. In recent months, we have made Parliament work by working with the opposition parties to implement practical measures to help Canadians. Since I am sure my colleagues are itching to hear what those are, I will take this opportunity to mention a few of them.

In March, we introduced the Canada emergency response benefit. This benefit helped Canadians in need to pay rent, put food on the table and clothe their children. We created this benefit together with the opposition parties; it was a lifeline we put together quickly to help those who really needed it. We were able to help millions of Canadians who lost their jobs, who were quarantined or who were taking care of someone with COVID-19. Our actions also helped working parents who had to stay home without pay to care for their children.

Now that the workers who lost their jobs are transitioning to employment insurance, the government has implemented other measures to help all Canadians, to help those who need it.

For people who need a helping hand, we created the Canada recovery benefit and the Canada recovery sickness benefit. Each of these was created because we found a way to work together. A minority government needs the support of at least one opposition party, and we have always managed to get it. At times, we have even gotten everyone's support. The last time we held a vote, all parties voted in favour of the government's proposed measures.

Let us not forget that, with the support of the House, we created a wage subsidy program to help businesses keep their employees on the payroll despite reduced demand for their products and services.

Also, and I am sure this will interest our opposition colleagues, we created the Canada emergency business account to provide interest-free loans to help businesses pay the rent and cover other major costs since the pandemic started.

Those are just a few examples of the measures the government has introduced to help Canadians get through these very trying pandemic times.

I am going to say this because I want to be very clear: We were able to do all that because we worked with the opposition parties. As a minority government, we needed the support of one party or another, or several parties, and managed to get it for the well-being, health and safety of Canadians.

The repercussions, whether economic, environmental or social, continue to evolve. The repercussions of this pandemic are far from over. All of this presents a huge challenge for the government, as well as for the opposition parties, which have a duty, under a social pact they entered into with their constituents, to work responsibly in the House. They have the same duty as the government.

What we are discussing here today is extremely important and serious. So much needs to be done. We have learned a lot about what works to protect the health and safety of Canadians and what we can do to help them get through this pandemic together. That is why the throne speech, which was eagerly read by all members of the House, outlined a number of measures to help Canadians as part of a very ambitious plan.

I would like to list a few of the priorities set out in the Speech from the Throne, especially those that address the pandemic. I am certain that the government's efforts, especially those made as a result of the throne speech, are of interest to my colleague. For example, the government will help the provinces increase testing capacity, continue to quickly ship PPE across the country, provide these tools to all provinces, work with the provinces and continue our direct financial support for businesses that need this help.

Men and women established these businesses. I have the greatest respect for these builders who are going through very tough times. We are there for them and the Speech from the Throne clearly sets out what we want to do.

We could have been debating all that and the number of things directly related to the pandemic and the government's ability to meet Canadians' needs during this pandemic. No, today we are debating an ultra-partisan motion, courtesy of our Conservative friends, a motion deemed to be irresponsible by many. That is definitely what the government thinks of it, and it is not alone.

Today's motion by the Conservatives would establish a special committee with the clear purpose, and only one purpose, of paralyzing the government. That is it. That is the only purpose, and they know that. The Conservatives are having fun and laughing about how they are going to jam up the government and how they are going to paralyze the government. That is what the Conservatives are trying to do in the middle of a pandemic. That is exactly what they are trying to do in the middle of this pandemic.

It is not a serious attempt to do serious work. It is a political inquisition. That is all it is. That is it. That is all. That is what it is. We will have none of it.

The motive is obvious. The Conservatives are trying to create scandals where there are none. They are trying to smear the reputations of good people. It has nothing to do with asking responsible questions about government policy in the middle of a pandemic. There are all those questions they could ask about the efforts of the government and how we could help Canadians. No, the Conservatives are too busy with partisan politics and trying to create this committee. They are very busy.

Earlier this week I made a reasonable proposal to the other parliamentary leaders to try to break the impasse we are in. We propose creating a committee to review all COVID-19-related spending. That would allow hon. members to put politics aside and work seriously for all Canadians. Why not?

It is a responsible and reasonable proposal. It is serious work. In that committee, hon. members from all parties would scrutinize the COVID-19-related programs, as any serious committee would do. Some hon. members prefer to use committees to give themselves outrageous powers that exceed all the limits of power granted to committees to lead their inquisition, which they have been salivating over from day one.

A committee like the one we are proposing would allow the opposition to share their comments and suggestions on the programs we have put in place. We have had some hits and misses. We can debate and discuss those. This would allow the government to make changes to existing programs. We can always improve what we are doing and the opposition can contribute to improving the programs that help all Canadians. We are totally open to discussing this in that committee. We are open to listening to their suggestions, as we have been doing from the start and will continue to do.

The work of the special committee that the government is proposing would clearly demonstrate to Canadians that the government and opposition parties are working together in a constructive and effective way. I think it is a fair proposition. I think we can work together in that committee, but I have a feeling that they will not support it because it is not partisan enough. It is too responsible. I think Canadians would like to see members of Parliament working together in a committee to see how we can improve things. Personally, I think our proposal is the best path forward for this Parliament: not for the government, not for the opposition but for Parliament.

I said today that if the Conservatives' proposals pass, it will raise serious questions about whether the House continues to have confidence in the government. This is extremely serious. The words that I chose were not written lightly in the letter I sent to my colleagues. It was important for everyone from all parties to understand that there could be significant political consequences if their ultra-partisan, irresponsible motion passed. It is a serious moment for the House, and this morning I had the opportunity to be even more clear. The government considers this motion to be a matter of confidence. It is a confidence vote. The truth is simple. Members of Parliament cannot establish a new committee with sweeping powers to investigate government corruption and at the same time claim they still have confidence in the government. It is one or the other.

We all know that, and I hope we can find a solution to all work together for the benefit of all Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

It being 6:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-CorruptionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.