House of Commons Hansard #17 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pandemic.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 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

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on what the member referenced, and that is the fact that the pandemic is the first priority, and should be the first priority, of all us in the House of Commons. There is absolutely no doubt about that. It has been the government's position since day one. Since day one, we have been working with provinces, territories, indigenous peoples, the private sector, non-profit organizations and the list goes on, so that people understand and appreciate the impact it is having around the world.

We have taken this issue very seriously. We have been working with political entities of all stripes at the different provincial levels. On occasion, yes, we have seen co-operation from opposition parties, even at times the Conservatives, but there is no doubt that the Conservative Party of Canada is playing games here in the House of Commons. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

Then the Conservatives try to come across as if, no, not them, they are not playing any games because they are focused on COVID-19. I have been a parliamentarian for 30 years. I can understand and appreciate when I see a game being played, and they are playing a game. They say it is about lives. Yes, the federal government, working with provincial governments and other stakeholders, has saved thousands of lives across Canada because there was a team Canada approach. People came together, recognizing what the Prime Minister was saying, which was that we needed to deal with the pandemic. That is exactly what we did.

One might ask why we are here today debating yet another game by the Conservative Party. I can understand why the Bloc would want to play its game. I can understand that. Bloc members are not big fans of Confederation. I am hoping that my New Democratic friends and my friends in the Green Party will realize the game that is being played by the Conservative Party. What is really interesting is how they try to turn it around. They try to say Liberals are hiding something. They say we are the ones who are not being “democratic”. Let me expand on a couple of those points.

Let me quote the member who introduced the motion we are debating today, the member for Calgary Nose Hill. I am glad she is listening very closely to this. She said, “but I think it behooves all committee members to remember that the committee is the master of its own destiny, and therefore, we are entrusted to take on studies that can look at anything we want.” That is exactly, word for word, what the mover of the motion said. I recommend that members look up the word “hypocrisy” in the dictionary.

We now have the very same member coming to the House of Commons with this motion, dictating to the health committee what it has to look at. There is no option. It does not matter who is on the health committee. It does not matter how many meetings it has had or that there have been over 100 witnesses already on COVID. The Conservatives do not care about that, no. Here is their agenda. This is what they want at a time when we are in the middle of a second wave. Members should think about that.

The information that Conservatives are requesting is extensive. There could be 14 or more reports just based on the motion put forward by the Conservative Party. One of the members across the way got it right: Shame on them. Shame on themselves. Think about it.

An amendment was moved and I asked the mover of the amendment, for just one clause, if it includes all memoranda. This is what the Conservatives want right now, within 14 days. They are saying they want all the civil servants working in those offices that have anything to do with this to stop what they are doing and focus their attention on this.

If they have to make calls to the provinces, if they have to talk to others about COVID-19, or if they are working on research, who cares? According to the Conservative Party, this is what they want them to do. This is one clause and, by the way, they have 14 days to do it:

(u) an order of the House do issue for all memoranda, emails, documents, notes or other records from the Office of the Prime Minister, the Privy Council Office, the office of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the office of the Minister of Health, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada, concerning options, plans and preparations for the GPHIN since January 1, 2018.

That is just one aspect. The Conservatives are saying, “Who cares what the members of the health committee want to debate or study?” It does not matter to them. What matters is the Conservative Party has an agenda, and Conservatives believe they can hoodwink every other member of the House into believing that this is a good, positive way to proceed in a time of crisis here in Canada.

I believe the Conservative Party has it wrong, or the Conservative leadership within the party has it wrong. I have listened to some other members and to some of the speeches provided on this issue. I think a number of Conservatives might feel somewhat uncomfortable.

We have a standing committee, and they are critical. The Conservatives are saying that the Liberals are filibustering the committees. The poor Conservative Party of Canada: The Liberal Party does not want it to preoccupy the civil servants with its garbage, at least in part, in the fashion that the Conservatives want to deal with it. It is important stuff, there is no doubt about it, in many different ways, but the Conservatives are saying they need it and need it right away: Everyone should stop all things and get that information before the committee.

We have committees that are asking us to hold on. They are prepared to study the important issues. They want to study the important issues that Canadians have to face regarding coronavirus.

I have heard the issue of mental health is one example. Imagine the impact that the coronavirus pandemic is having on mental health in our country. I think that would be a worthy study. It is not for me to judge what would be worthy and what would not. I believe that the health committee is in a much better position to do that.

Conservatives are frustrated because they cannot get the health committee to do what they want. What they want is the only thing that can happen, so if the Liberals do not let them have it in committee, they will bring it to the House. The Conservatives feel they can trump the committee and force the committee to look at it.

However, a few years back the Conservatives talked, as the sponsor of this motion did, about how important it was that we respect our standing committees. Look who is not respecting those standing committees today. Look who is not interested in protecting the interests of the civil servants who are being called upon to deliver the best service they can to Canadians, whether by providing advice or participating in conferences or doing science or research: whatever it might be.

Instead, Conservatives are focused on committees producing papers. They want papers. They want thousands and thousands of papers in all forms. They are looking for a word: it might be “Liberal”, or it might be “Prime Minister”, or another minister. Then they are going to say there is a huge conspiracy, another ethical scandal, and then they will hammer on it.

That is what the Conservative focus has been, even before the Prime Minister became the Prime Minister. That is why, when I stood up on Tuesday, I talked about Conservatives' priorities and the games they play, even when we are in a pandemic. I asked them to put a pause on it. There are many other things the opposition party could be doing. I know: I was in opposition for over 20 years. There are many things that they could do during a pandemic.

I would think the Conservative leadership team would understand that. Conservatives make reference to the proroguing of Parliament and ask why we had a prorogation. People who are following the debate should know that the last time the House sat in the summertime was back in 1988. We sat in July and August. Yes, technically it was not a formal sitting of the House, but the House still was here and there were questions and answers were being provided. Opposition parties, all members, were afforded the opportunity to ask hundreds of questions on a wide variety of issues. Members who are interested to know what kinds of questions were asked can look at Hansard. It is there and they can read all they want.

We sat more days in the summer months than we lost because of prorogation, but we would not know that if we listened to the Conservatives' spin on the issue. One would think that democracy is falling because of it. The reality is that it is true only if it is convenient for the Conservative Party.

As for filibustering in committees, my goodness, has anyone ever seen a Conservative filibuster a committee? I have seen some boring stuff come from Conservative filibusters. I sat in the chamber and listened to the member for Carleton speak for 14 hours on a budget, and he was talking about all sorts of little rocks and the building. There was 14 hours of it. Do you want to talk about a filibuster? I think he sat down for the last half-hour so the New Democrats or another party would be able to speak, but he prevented any other member from speaking.

I know what a filibuster is, and the Conservatives are good at it. They are very good at filibusters, but when they do not like the filibuster then automatically it is a bad thing and is undemocratic. If my Conservative friends do not want to see ongoing dialogue and discussion in some of those committees, then maybe sit down and work out what it is they would like to be able to talk about.

I sat on committees, and generally speaking, what happens is that there is a consensus about what the agenda is going to look like and what sorts of studies will be done. There are Liberal members of that committee who are very concerned. They want to start looking into some of these very serious impacts of the COVID-19 virus. Mental health is an excellent example.

What about the issue of home care services? Look at the percentage of seniors who are dying as a result of COVID-19 in care facilities. Liberals, and I hope all members, should be very much concerned about that. Maybe it is time we focus the Standing Committee of Health on that issue. These are just ideas that come to my mind. I suspect if we were to canvass the members of the committee we would find there are many different ideas.

The member for Calgary Nose Hill, who moved this motion, said that it was the standing committee that sets the agenda and she was right. Allow them to do their job. She does not want to do that. The Conservative leadership does not want to do that now. Why? It does not quite fit what it is they want.

I believe the Conservatives duck here, hide around there, say what it is they want and try to give the impression they are fighting for Canadians when, in reality, there has been absolutely zero change in the priorities of the Conservative Party since Stephen Harper was the prime minister and they lost the election five years ago.

I witnessed that when I was sitting in the third party when our current Prime Minister was elected as leader of the Liberal Party. At that time, the Conservative Party spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising, trying to tell Canadians how bad the Liberal leader was at the time. Nothing has changed. The Conservatives continue to do that, and that is why I believe that the Conservatives have zero credibility on the issue.

Even today, how many of them want to talk about scandals? I have far more confidence in the Commissioner of Ethics than I have in the Conservative Party, as all Canadians do. The Office of the Ethics Commissioner is very new to Parliament, as an independent office. Imagine if the office had been here during the in and out scandal or if it had been around here when we had one Conservative member go to jail in handcuffs? What about the Airbus incident?

The Conservatives like to say, “Oh, those Liberals and the Ethics Commissioner.” The Ethics Commissioner is doing a job that we expected them to do. There will be modifications over the years as the Ethics Commissioner educates all of us in terms of what our responsibilities are.

The Conservatives mentioned Frank Baylis. I know Frank. Listening to the Conservatives, we would think that there is a contract between Frank Baylis and the Government of Canada. That is just not true, but yet they will still say it because they want CTV, CBC and all the TV networks to say, “There is this huge conflict. Let us get to the bottom of this.” The Conservatives have no qualms about exaggeration, rumours, hearsay or anything of that nature. That is their priority.

From day one and continuing, as the Prime Minister himself said just the other day, we are not going to continue to allow the Conservative Party to play the games of obstruction and trying to take civil servants away from what they need to do and they do best, which is to serve Canadians so that we can have an economy and a society as a whole that is healthier and able to do the things that we need to do.

As a government, we have an obligation to support Canadians as a need. Yes, it is a minority government and we will continue to work with opposition parties, even the ones that are challenging most of the time, but we still continue to work. Let me remind members that as much as it is important that the Liberal Party understands it is a minority, it is important to recognize that the opposition parties also have a responsibility.

At this point in time, I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, that the amendment be amended by deleting all the words starting with “minutes” and ending with the word “committees”, and replacing them with the following: “documents or information that constitute cabinet confidences or that could jeopardize the health and safety of Canadians as determined by the Clerk of the Privy Council”; and, by adding after “seven days”, the words, “at a time”.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

We just went through this a short time ago, so members will know that when an amendment or, as in this case, a subamendment is proposed, it must get the consent of the mover of the principal motion.

I therefore ask the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill if she consents to the subamendment.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would note that in the text of the motion right now it does include exemptions for cabinet confidence as it relates to minutes of the cabinet meeting, contractual obligations, national security obligations, personal health information. It is a very extensive list. After the health minister did not specify anything during the House—

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I think we are looking for a yes or no, please.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am deliberating this. The Liberals did not consult with us at all today. I think that we have it right on this side, so I am really excited. The answer is no.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

There being no consent, therefore pursuant to Standing Order 85, the subamendment cannot be moved at this time.

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 motion and the amendment to the motion.

Pursuant to an order made Wednesday, September 23, we do not proceed to a voice vote. Accordingly, if a member present here in the House wishes that a recorded division be held or that the amendment be accepted on division, I ask them to rise in their place to indicate that they wish a recorded division.

Accordingly, pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, September 23, the division stands deferred until Monday, October 26, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I see the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader rising on a point that may be of curiosity to the House.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you might get unanimous consent to call it 6:30 p.m.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Is it the pleasure of the House to see the clock at 6:30 p.m.?

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

October 22nd, 2020 / 6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity this evening to raise a few issues and give the government an opportunity to respond.

We have seen a theme since the 2015 election among the Liberals and the Prime Minister, and the company they keep. We can break down the company they keep into two categories.

In the first group, we have the likes of Liberals Joe Peschisolido and Raymond Chan. As it has recently been reported, they have links to individuals charged in a gangland shooting and to the Chinese Communist Party. Then there are the bad actors in Markham, who were operating a heavily armed, illegal casino. These individuals happen to be Liberal donors. They have met with the Liberal Prime Minister and interestingly donated $1 million to the Prime Minister's foundation.

Then there is another type of friend. I imagine members know the ones I am talking about, the ones who paid the family of the Prime Minister half a million dollars and who received, in kind, a contract worth half a billion dollars. We all know the organization I am referring to. It is the one that set up a shell company to run that program, with a contribution agreement worth half a billion dollars.

Speaking of shell companies, there is also the Liberal friend, a friend of the Prime Minister, who was given $237 million for a ventilator contract. Of course, that was run through a shell company. We might be seeing a bit of a theme there. The shell company is paying former Liberal MP Frank Baylis. He is the one who received this sweet contract for his ventilators that did not have regulatory approval anywhere, not just in Canada.

These are just a few examples, and they really speak to the arrogance and entitlement of the Liberals and the Prime Minister. When questions are raised, legitimate questions, about people being criminally charged, they are very quickly cast off by the Liberals. That is a personal attack.

What we have is a degradation of confidence in Canadian institutions, and the cause of that is the Prime Minister. He has twice been found guilty of breaking ethics laws, and he is under investigation for a third time. When he faces tough questions, what does he do? He shuts down Parliament; he prorogues it. He says there will be lots of time for questions later. However, when those questions get asked, what does he do? He has his members filibuster at committee. When the opposition brings important issues to the House, what happens? He threatens an election.

Canadians are right to be concerned about the company the Liberals and the Prime Minister keep, but I can say that in this place I find myself in good company, because Her Majesty's loyal opposition is willing to hold the government and the Liberals to account.

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

6:20 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

Mr. Speaker, I had somewhat anticipated that we might talk about Elections Canada and some of the issues surrounding it, particularly donation regimes and so forth. I will, like the member has done, put that to the side and take a different approach.

It is consistent with what I just spoke about prior to the adjournment debate. The member is one of a few in the Conservative Party that is charged with the responsibility of ethics, apparently. It was many years ago, when I was an MLA, that I was asked to take on that sort of role. I have seen a lot of change over the years, a change to a higher sense of accountability and transparency in government. There are bits and pieces that I can recall right offhand that I thought were very helpful in terms of making a statement. Let me provide an example of one of them.

When the Prime Minister was the leader of the Liberal Party, he was sitting in the corner where third party members sit. At the time, he stood in the House and asked for leave for what we call proactive disclosure. He asked all MPs to provide proactive disclosure on their budgets. No one would do it. Members denied it outright. We tried it on at least two occasions, though it may have even been more than that. The leader of the Liberal Party then said that, even if the Conservatives did not want to administer it for their members, he mandated proactive disclosure for all Liberal members. As a result, a few months later, the Conservatives were shamed into doing what we had suggested they do. Then a number of months later, the New Democrats did likewise.

I cited that example because I saw that as a step forward. When Stephen Harper established the independence of the Ethics Commissioner's office, I saw that too as a step forward. The Ethics Commissioner was going to find ways to improve our system, and that is exactly what he has done. The member referenced the Prime Minister, but there have been recommendations that go beyond just the Liberal Party. The Ethics Commissioner is doing what he needs to do.

What the Conservatives have clearly demonstrated, and this member, in particular, is one of the front-runners on it, is that they know how to exaggerate things significantly. The member will say that the former minister of finance had a villa in France. I think that means it is a house or possibly a cottage. Over the summer, I actually purchased a cottage by Lake Winnipeg. I spent a long time there. I loved it. The problem is that I got in late August.

We learn from the Ethics Commissioner and that is the way it should be, whether it is Conservatives being investigated and reported on or Liberals.

I am wondering if the member would recognize that the Ethics Commissioner's office should be respected for the work it does and demonstrate that by saying so.

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his cottage. I mean no disrespect to him, but I imagine it might not be quite apples to apples with that of the former finance minister, Mr. Morneau.

It is interesting that the member talks about the establishment of the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That was an establishment set up by the former Conservative government under former Prime Minister Harper, as was the Director of Public Prosecutions. Both of these offices ended up serving as traps that the Liberals walked right into. The DPP stopped the Prime Minister from criminally interfering in a prosecution, though he attempted to, and that was the subject of the “Trudeau Report II”. Of course the first “Trudeau Report” was his first foray into breaking ethics laws. He is now under investigation for a third time. The office is doing the work it needs to do. Certainly it gets lots of business from the Liberal Prime Minister.

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, the member would love the cottage, and he is more than welcome to come visit sometime. It was a pretty good deal at $60,000. I am quite pleased with it.

I suspect the Ethics Commissioner would have also looked at the senate scandal. The senate scandal involved a wide selection of people. I think it was about a half dozen. There may have even been as many as 10 people who were directly linked to the PMO. I suspect we could have learned something from that. The RCMP was involved.

I look at the Ethics Commissioner and that office as being here to protect us into the future. They are not only there to say, “This is absolutely wrong. Here are these huge fines, and this is the consequence.”

Hopefully, as they do, they provide information to new members. Even people such as myself learn from that particular office. I do value its work.

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:29 p.m.)