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.
Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker 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
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
Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
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
The Deputy Speaker 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.
And one or more members having risen:
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.
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
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
Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on HealthBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
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.
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.
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.
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
The Deputy Speaker 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.)