House of Commons Hansard #5 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pandemic.
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Madam Speaker, I am open to improving the rules. Still, we can write all the rules we want, but the important thing is to adopt them and rigorously apply them with dignity and with respect for the voters who elected us. We must represent them with honour and dignity.
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, there are hundreds of people in the province of Quebec today who will find out that they have COVID-19. The Government of Canada and MPs on all sides of the House are gravely concerned about what we could be doing collectively as a House in this time of crisis.
Would my colleague across the way not agree that the crisis should be the issue we are dealing with? There are other opportunities through which the motion before us could be dealt with. Would he not agree that the priority for Canadians is the pandemic?
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Madam Speaker, when there is a conflict of interest, I think it is important to point it out and debate it openly, not behind closed doors. We must have a debate here, in this place, the people's Parliament. I believe that this matter deserved to be debated this morning.
That does not prevent us from discussing other issues. I am pleased that we are getting back to having a Parliament as it should be. I will repeat to my colleague that I expect this government to implement sustainable and meaningful measures to get through this crisis. If I have the honour of speaking to the House, I could make several proposals. Yesterday, we introduced a recovery plan with sustainable solutions that will help us get through this crisis.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Madam Speaker, I am very proud to take part in this virtual debate. I am here, at home, in the small town of Cobalt in northern Ontario.
It is a historic moment for me in my 16 years of Parliament to participate virtually, and we are doing this because we are in an unprecedented economic and medical crisis. It is the biggest crisis our country has faced in nearly a century. The pandemic has upended everything and it is actually inspiring to see how Parliament is attempting to find ways, including virtually, to maintain the integrity of voting and debate. I am very proud to speak for the people of Timmins—James Bay this morning on the concurrence motion on the ethics report on Mr. Peschisolido.
I have spent many years taking on corruption in Parliament and pushing on the issues of ethics. I have to admit, there was a moment this morning when I was saying, “What report was that? Oh yes, the 'Peschisolido Report',” because we have had so many ethics violations against the Liberals that they stack up. We have to keep track of them. This was about his role with his law firm and his failure to disclose his clear conflicts of interest.
Why does that matter? It matters because I was doing an interview recently with American journalists about the WE scandal. They said, compared with the scandals they have in the United States, how do we think our scandals are serious? I said to them that it is because we have the Conflict of Interest Act, the Lobbying Act, Elections Canada and the elections financing rules, and we expect politicians to maintain them, that we are not in a situation like the United States right now. The rule of law and the obligation of Parliamentarians to follow the rule of law has to be maintained as a primary principle.
We have had a number of scandals under the Liberal government, including the Mr. Grewal scandal. I wrote to the Ethics Commissioner about that scandal and that has gone on to the RCMP. The initial issue with the Grewal scandal was his using his position as a member of Parliament to further the financial interests of friends, and that was in the notorious India scandal.
Mr. Morneau, the former finance minister, quit in the midst of an unprecedented economic crisis because of his complete failure to even read the Conflict of Interest Act and to know he had been put in a position of conflict in his dealings with WE Charity. It is absolutely unacceptable.
The Prime Minister is now under his third investigation. The question at the heart of the WE scandal is how it is possible that a group who has built such close ties with all the key Liberals in power, in the midst of their own financial crisis, were able to get upwards of $500 million because of who they knew. We should not be running government like this. In the midst of an unprecedented pandemic, Canadians need to be assured that the government is not putting the needs of their friends before the needs of Canadians.
In my riding, the people of Kashechewan have been waiting for years for the government to sign off on basic things like a road so that they can begin to move to a new community. In April of this year, the community had to live in tents on the land because of COVID. They could not be evacuated and they had no safe place to go. When they heard about the WE scandal they asked me how it was possible that these guys could get $500 million so easily, when they have to fight and beg to get the government to recognize even the most basic changes in their communities.
That is the principle we have to keep front and centre when we are talking about conflicts of interest. It is about the role of powerful insiders who should not have that access. I am certainly looking forward to the return of our committees. The finance committee was doing excellent work on the WE scandal. We need answers. The official languages committee will be looking at the WE scandal because of the fact that this was a group completely unprepared to present their program in Quebec, let alone the rest of the country.
The ethics committee has certainly raised a number of questions about the relationships between key government ministers and the Kielburger brothers. We also have just had a finding of guilt against Liberal insider David MacNaughton, after I raised a questions to the Ethics Commissioner about the former ambassador's work on behalf of Palantir Technologies.
This is a huge issue. Palantir is a deeply problematic surveillance company. This is a company run by billionaire tech giant Peter Thiel, who has some very extreme right views and some very questionable views on democracy. This technology has been used to target migrant families, and we know about the horrific abuses that are taking place in the detention centres. We know that Palantir honed its technologies in Iraq. It has been tied to the CIA and the FBI. I do not think people can say that this company has Canadian values, yet, because it hired a top Liberal insider, it got an all-access pass to everybody, such as Rick Theis, the Prime Minister's confidant; the Deputy Prime Minister; the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry; and the chief of the defence staff.
How is it possible that people at a company like Palantir could get this kind of inside access just because they hired a top Liberal? I am certainly looking forward to having that discussion at the ethics committee, and I am hoping my colleagues in the Bloc, the Liberals and the Conservatives will support me in ensuring that Mr. MacNaughton comes to explain how he got this kind of access.
These issues of ethics and accountability are vitally important. However, we also need to remember that the discussion this morning is happening in the midst of a massive crisis that is facing us right now. The fact that the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament to escape accountability on the WE scandal is something we need to investigate. The reason we have an urgency this morning is that the Prime Minister did not let Parliament sit when it should have sat. The CERB benefits are ending and people are facing deep financial crisis right now. Our obligation at the end of the day is to ensure that we are there, rising up to meet the issues of the pandemic, because this second wave looks like it might be even outpacing the first wave very quickly.
In terms of what the CERB and its cut-off means, we know the Prime Minister and the Liberal government were looking to jail people who were not eligible for CERB but were getting it. The Liberals promised money for disabilities and they never delivered it. In their last trial balloon, when they modified CERB into its new form, they were going to cut it from $2,000 to $1,600 a month.
What would that mean for people who have lost work or who have no work to go back to? Just the other day, I spoke with a woman who just moved from Alberta to Ontario. She set herself up in a practice as a naturopath. She had taken on huge amounts of student debt. She set up the practice. She was going to be a self-employed businesswoman and then COVID-19 hit. She has had no ability to practise her work. Sixteen hundred dollars a month will be economically devastating. Two thousand dollars a month through the winter will get her through to the other side. That is the focus right now.
I was speaking with a woman who spent years as a self-employed broker, helping with tourism and tour plans for people. Well, there is no tourism going on and without this money, she is economically destitute.
Therefore, our priority right now has to be getting things fixed and being able to answer for the crisis we are in. As much as I enjoy and think it is really important that we get to talk about Liberal conflicts of interest, our priority this morning is to get back on the issue of dealing with the crisis and the pandemic, to start showing Canadians that we can work together in this Parliament to deal with issues for people who have to take time off work because they are sick, without being economically devastated, and ensure that the CERB gets through. It is about getting people through to the other side of this winter. This is going to be a hard winter and we have to be there for them.
As for the ethics violations, I think our committee is going to be very busy in the coming months, but we still have other issues as well.
I am very pleased to participate in this. I thank my colleagues in the Conservative Party for bringing this motion forward. It is a good motion; it is worthy of study. However, we need to get these measures passed today, so people can get some economic security at this time. They are looking to us to do this.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Madam Speaker, could the hon. member share his thoughts on prorogation? The timing seemed interesting, as was the fact that it was for six weeks. If the Liberals were so adamant about a new throne speech, they essentially could have prorogued overnight. What are his thoughts on that?
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Madam Speaker, the issue with the prorogation was it happened just as the government did its massive document dump on the WE scandal, of which it had blacked out many of the pages. However, the pages that were not blacked out raised some seriously troubling issues, for example, the secret meeting between the youth minister and Craig Kielburger on April 17. That meeting really set the tone for giving the Kielburger group the inside track.
What we also saw in those documents, which is staggeringly unacceptable, was that in their promotion to key ministers and key departments, the Kielburgers included photos of the Prime Minister's family, his mother and his wife, to show how close they were. This put the Prime Minister in a serious conflict of interest. The Prime Minister has an obligation under the Conflict of Interest Act to have his personal affairs in order so he is not in a conflict. The fact that the documents were using pictures of his family for promotion is very troubling.
We were not able to ask those questions when we should have. That prorogation has actually affected people economically. It was not right.
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question.
We spent part of the summer trying to shed light on WE Charity. We also found that people no longer trust the government. Since the hon. member has 16 years of experience and I am a new MP, I would like to ask him what can be done to increase Canadians' trust and stop the torrent of conflicts of interest and ethics violations coming out of this government.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Madam Speaker, that is a good question.
It is essential that the Parliament of Canada take measures to ensure compliance with the law. The government and all hon. members must abide by the conflict of interest code. Clearly, the Prime Minister and the Liberals have a history of ignoring their obligations. In my opinion, Parliament needs to start a new conflict of interest investigation and impose penalties to ensure that the Prime Minister and cabinet comply with the law.
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, could my colleague comment on why it is so important that not only the national government but governments across the board look at ways to support Canadians?
The legislation, which his leader has seconded, reinforces just how important the role is for government to be there in that real, tangible way for Canadians, because of a loss of income and the need to survive.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Madam Speaker, it is essential. COVID-19 upended so many myths about our national economy.
Within two weeks of the shutdown, people did not have enough money to pay their rent. To get through what will be a very hard winter, the federal government has the tools and the power to play a huge role, working with the provinces. We need to say to Canadians that we will get them through to the other side.
That other side has to be a better Canada. We are going to spend unprecedented amounts of money. It needs scrutiny. We need to ensure it is going to the right places. We need to be there and show that we can work together at this time. This crisis has been unlike anything we have ever seen since the Second World War or the Great Depression.
I am encouraging my colleagues to work together so we can do this.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Madam Speaker, I was a little late getting to the House this morning and have now reviewed the motion. Why now? Why today?
I remember making a speech in the session just past, the one that was prorogued. I know there is opposition to that and that is fine. That can happen in a democracy. However, I remember saying that Canadians had put in place a minority Parliament and we should take the opportunity as parliamentarians to show we could make this Parliament work. Errors happen, and I am not saying the government is errorless because it is not. However, if Canadians are watching Parliament right now, are they proud of us? I do not think they are.
I have had the opportunity, as the Canada-U.S. chair, to go to the U.S. many times. I have seen how partisan the situation is there. The Democrats are here, the Republicans are there and never shall the two meet. I have always said that I am so proud of us as Canadians that we have not let that happen. However, this motion tells me that it is happening. Yes, this issue needs to be debated. There is nothing wrong with the motion, but today is not the day. Canadians are concerned about the COVID-19 pandemic. Businesses are concerned about where they sit.
I spent a half an hour this morning on the phone with one of the food processors in the country. It believes the government is still continuing to move ahead with new regulations. I personally would oppose on front of pack labelling. Now is not the time for that either. Companies have suggested that other countries have brought in some tax measures that make them non-competitive here. That is one of our main industries. We should be debating issues like that, not this one today. There will be a time and place. That is why we have separate committees. These issues should be at least before a committee first, the ethics committee or some other. There is limited time to have debate on Bill C-2/Bill C-4. We have seen a slice of where this Parliament can work.
The government side came together with the leader of the NDP and made changes to improve the assistance to individuals and for improved sick leave. That is fine. We should debate that issue. Several people in the House were on the finance committee, during which we held hearings in late May, after Parliament shut down due to COVID-19. We heard some 300 witnesses who had a lot of concerns, such as where they would be as went go through this pandemic? We should be talking about those issues.
I am suggesting that for the next couple of months we concentrate on the issues about which Canadians are concerned. This is political theatre in terms of this motion. I have been in opposition and I played these kind of games. I admit that. However, we are in a pandemic and we need to deal with the issue that is before us.
My request is that we deal with the issue Canadians want us to deal with, specifically for the next six weeks or so. Let us let our committees deal with some of the other issues such as the WE scandal, which needs more work on. We have had hearings at the finance committee. We went through the documents. I know issues will continue to come up, but today in the House is not the place for that to occur.
The tourism industry in my area is gravely concerned about where it finds itself. The airline and transportation industries are gravely concerned about where they find themselves. The airports in my region are down 94% in business. What are we, as parliamentarians, going to propose to those industries so they can survive until next season? Hospitality and tourism industry members are telling me now that while they figured 2021 would be the rebound year, they are now looking at it as the transition year and that hopefully 2022 will be the rebound year. We need to look at what we can do to strengthen the economy.
The debate on Bill C-2 and Bill C-4 is going to be about assistance to individuals, and yes that assistance has to be there, but what are we going to do beyond that to strengthen businesses so they can be there and be the backbone of our economy in the future? Those are some of the things we need to be talking about.
The other thing I heard, more over the summer and not so much at the finance committee, is about whether the chartered banks are pulling their weight. Right now, the bank deferrals are starting to come due. I have been talking to some in the business industry who are saying that they are having a rough ride with the banks in rolling over their operating capital and loans.
The government and Canadian taxpayers have basically backed the big banks such as the Business Development Corporation, the Export Development Corporation and Farm Credit Canada with additional liquidity to basically give them a guarantee as they provide monies during this pandemic. I do not believe this place and the banks are pulling their full weight in getting us out of this pandemic. Those are some of the issues we need to be talking about.
Over the summer, we heard a lot of talk from a lot of people on a guaranteed annual income. That is an issue we should be discussing. Personally, I do not think we can go holus-bolus, but I would not mind seeing a few pilot projects across the country to see how it goes. Would those be able to replace some of the other programs we had to quickly bring in as a result of the pandemic? We need to be discussing those issues.
I want to turn to where I come from, the farm community. I am hearing a lot of concern from members of the farm community about the safety nets in place for them at the moment. I strongly believe the business risk management program must be improved. I could go through a litany of things and blame the previous government on that because it cut back the business risk management from 85% to 70%, but let us get it back up there again and work together to do that.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
The member said that I just did. Yes, I guess I did, but I could go through a heck of a lot more issues that the previous government did that really are not helpful to us today but will not bother doing that because I really believe we need to find a way to work together, especially in the short term.
Let me sum up my thoughts, which will be hard to do in the 25 seconds I have left.
When we all stand in this place in this kind of debate, what do Canadians think of their Parliament and do they think we are doing what they see as a priority? This motion is not what I believe they see as a priority. Let us get on with putting in place the programs and then we can have these kinds of debates in the House, at committee, wherever.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, it is a joy to rise and take part in this debate. I have a quote from December 31, 2009, that I would like to read and get the member's feedback on. It is a CBC article, which states:
...it's an affront to the citizens of Canada and their purpose in electing members to Parliament in the last election.
“We have men and women fighting abroad for democracy and we have our own prime minister shutting democracy down,” he said.
“People have to understand when you prorogue Parliament you lose everything that was there. Committees can no longer function now — they're gone. How do we raise questions with the prime minister on the biggest deficit in Canadian history? How do we question and propose things to them in terms of what are they going to cut? What programs are they going to take away?”
This was talking about the prorogation of Parliament in 2009.
What is the difference between the member for Malpeque in 2009 and the member standing here today?
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Madam Speaker, there is really no difference in the member then and the member now. I have made it clear that I am not in favour of prorogation, I stand by that, but I do believe that the prorogation then was a little worse than it is now in that it was to prevent a vote that could have brought down the government, and it was a much longer prorogation. I underline this clearly. If a government is going to prorogue to open another session, it should be for a very short number of days. I am not one who is in favour of prorogation.
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Madam Speaker, on the one hand, I note that our colleague across the way did not indicate whether or not he was in favour of the motion. It would be interesting to find out.
On the other hand, in my opinion, the argument that we have more important things to discuss is a waste of time, and that is truly unfortunate. Prorogation delayed things by almost a month. It could have been much shorter.
What purpose did the prorogation serve? It was used as a diversionary tactic, because the government was in a conflict of interest with WE Charity.
I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the following: If there was truly a need to prorogue Parliament, why not just prorogue for a few days? That would have saved us a tremendous amount of time. Now we are under pressure. We are being asked to rush the bill through when it would have been better to have time to debate it. The Liberals are trying to find red herrings to avoid talking about ethics issues. They have a problem with ethics.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Madam Speaker, the member's main argument was that it would be good to have more time to debate the bills before us. The motion right now is absolutely taking away from that time. As I said in my remarks, why today, why now? That is political gamesmanship and I do not believe the people in the member's riding think this is the issue that we should be dealing with in this House.
Time is important in this House and we need to take time to get all the ideas from everyone, because there are good ideas. I saw that at the finance committee. There are good ideas from all parties. That is what we need to be doing: getting those good ideas to strengthen our economy and look after individuals and businesses. That is what we ought be doing.
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Madam Speaker, I agree with a number of the points the member raised in his speech. When we think about whether Canadians are proud of the Liberal government, the answer is no. The Liberal government threatened to put people who were applying for the CERB in jail or giving them exorbitant fines when its own members were telling Canadians that if they are not sure they are eligible, they should apply anyway. Now they are seeing their government, consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments, mired in scandals. What does the member think Canadians think of the Liberal government right now?
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Madam Speaker, I think Canadians are very proud of what this government has done in terms of the pandemic. I think they are very proud of how quickly we acted. There were 10,000 applications a minute going through in order to get the CERB, which kept food on the table and gave people the confidence to stay home and help fight the pandemic. I talked to a lot of my constituents, a lot of Canadians, and I think that they are really proud of how the government acted with the pandemic. What the member is talking about are other side issues, which are not the issue of the moment.
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Madam Speaker, as I enter into this debate, it is unfortunate that, once again, parliamentarians are seized with having to discuss a Liberal ethical failure.
I would like to respond a little to some of the members opposite who seemed to be so concerned that we in this House have to deal with the long list, the big pile, of ethical failures when, in their words, we should be debating the things that matter to Canadians. It is unfortunate that these Liberals seem so concerned about their own political aims that they would do something like prorogue Parliament when we could have been debating the very issues that they say are so important. We could have been debating them weeks ago. We offered, as the Conservatives, to come in on Sunday to debate the very legislation that they are saying we need to spend more time on. We offered that, and they said no, and so I find it tragic, but this is typical in true Liberal fashion.
The Liberals will be so quick to say that there is an emergency, that we need to be part of a team Canada approach, whatever the case is, when, really, they have no interest in listening to anyone other than those narrow perspectives that they decide are important. It is unfortunate that, in the process over the past eight months, so often this House and the perspectives of many in it have been silenced. If they were interested in a team Canada approach, I truly believe that we could have looked at many of the programs that have helped Canadians and they would have been made better. We see something like the emergency wage subsidy. The Liberals started at a 10% subsidy, which, after significant pressure from members of my party, the Conservative Party, and many Canadians and business groups, it was raised to 75%. That is called a team Canada approach, and I am glad that there are instances of that, but we could have done so much more had they not sidelined Parliament.
If we look at the prorogation, it is unprecedented in using a legitimate parliamentary tool to shut down the investigations into the actions of the Prime Minister and his senior cohorts. It is unprecedented that a prime minister would abuse executive authority in such a flagrant manner. It is unbelievable.
One of my colleagues across the way used the word “disappointment”. Now, in his context, he said that he was disappointed that we are debating Liberal ethical failures, and I am sure he is. He would rather be talking about anything else, I am sure. I will tell members what I hear each and every day from my constituents: disappointment in this Liberal government, disappointment in the laundry list of ethical failures, disappointment in the fact that there is a Prime Minister across the way who is saying that the idea of a national unity crisis is crazy. It is unbelievable, and a true shame for the honour that needs to be represented in the House from coast to coast to coast.
I find it tragic that we have government members who are so embroiled in their own scandal, so embroiled in their own political aims that they would refuse to acknowledge the crisis. It is not for lack of trying from every western MP, and not just Conservative western MPs, although we do make up the vast majority of them. Western MPs have been making it clear that there is a unity crisis, yet the government refuses to acknowledge that it even exists; for shame.
We have before us today another Liberal ethical failure of a former member of Parliament breaching the ethics code 10 times. This is a code that was put in place to ensure that members of this place had a framework to ensure that their ethical conduct fit within the expectations of Canadians. One of my fellow Conservative colleagues was reflecting upon his many years in this place and said that, back when it was first introduced, the idea of naming and shaming was enough, that the members of this place were concerned about how they conducted themselves, and they were concerned about the fact that they wanted to do what was best for Canadians.
However, when we look at the conduct of the top of the current government over close to the last five years, let alone the conduct of many others, we see time and time again the absolute disregard they show toward ethics and the conduct that Canadians expect us to uphold. There is real disappointment in the actions of the Liberal government. It is so consumed by its own scandals, waste and mismanagement that it is truly distracting from its ability to do the things that Canadians expect it to do.
It is important for us to continue to debate the other items that are before the House, but if we do not ensure that the trust and integrity of this institution is upheld, we are in an incredibly difficult place. When the trust in this institution is eroded, we see significant challenges. We see that there is a lack of trust in anything the government says, not just its political leaders, but anything that the Liberals say. Canadians cannot trust their Prime Minister when he has truly misrepresented himself in this place, and it has been found to be the case, whether regarding his Aga Khan vacation or the SNC Lavalin scandal.
I sat on the ethics committee this summer and every day there was a new development about the government's unbelievable conduct. It was an absolute embarrassment to the institutions and places that each one of us represents, all 338 of us and the seats that we are temporary custodians of. The erosion of trust that has been taking place is unbelievable.
Therefore, it is important that we debate issues like this, for we have to ensure that when somebody makes a mistake there is a full accounting of that. The motion that my colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes has brought forward is a step to ensure that there is an accounting and that responsibility is taken, because Canadians demand nothing less. There is a need to ensure that responsibility is taken for the actions of the government.
Canadians cannot trust the words of the current government, and it is causing a breakdown of the trust in our society. It is truly a societal issue: when we cannot trust the words of our leaders, it causes a societal breakdown that is concerning beyond all belief. We need to take this issue very seriously, just as we all need to take ethics and our conduct very seriously. We need to work diligently to ensure that trust is brought back to the institutions of Parliament and that we demonstrate that this place matters. There is one place in this country where every square kilometre of this beautiful nation is represented, and that is on the green carpet within the walls of this chamber. We need to demonstrate to Canadians that we are all worthy of that.
I represent a large rural riding with many communities. I had a conversation with constituents the other day and asked them to give me a brief report on how things were going in their communities and how they feel the government is doing. I listened on Zoom calls with person after person, about 20 of them in all. Time and time again, what I heard most was that they were tired of the scandal, the waste and the mismanagement of the government, and that they were looking forward to a day when good governance was brought back to this country: governance that Canadians could trust.
I am proud to support the motion brought forward by my colleague and look forward to answering questions in that regard, so that we can bring trust back to the hallowed halls of this Parliament.
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Madam Speaker, I am wondering, given that we have burned up this much time instead of talking about the things that are truly right there in front of Canadians and important to them, if the member would be willing to expand upon his colleague's motion and deal with a very long list, that I could go into great lengths of time to describe to him, as compiled by The Tyee five years ago, entitled “Harper, Serial Abuser of Power: The Evidence Compiled”, and the 70 occasions on which that Conservative crew offended democracy and Canadians.
Shall we ask for apologies from them, too?
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Madam Speaker, that can be answered quite simply. There is one prime minister in this country's history who has been found guilty of the Conflict of Interest Act, and I can assure members it is not a Conservative prime minister. It is the Liberal Prime Minister who sits across the way, who self-aggrandizes every day, and who is eroding the trust Canadians have in this place. Accordingly, it is a shame there have not been appropriate consequences.
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. We all want to help people and try to find a way out of this crisis.
What happens when human beings go through a crisis? When everything is fine, we do not try to change things, but when things go wrong, we grab the bull by the horns and get to the bottom of things.
What is stopping us from scrutinizing the government's conflicts of interest and ethical lapses while at the same time making changes that will help our fellow citizens during this pandemic?
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. We should be dealing with both. That is exactly what we are doing.
It would have been great if we had been doing this for the last number of weeks. The Liberals, in typical fashion, shut everything down, say there is an emergency and, because they have shut everything down, at the last minute come up with some miraculous solution that they then have to ram through with no regard for the process, no regard for constructive feedback that could be given. They just ram it through. They manufacture these circumstances so they can use urgency for their own political ends.
Canadians deserve better. In this place today we are seized with a number of very important issues, including the help that Canadians need, but also the fact that we need to stop the erosion of trust that is taking place within our institution of Parliament. That is what this motion is about.
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Madam Speaker, for the last couple of hours we have watched the Liberals and Conservatives point fingers at each other. Before I sound like Mercutio and call for a pox on both their houses, let me say this. I believe the member should be careful, for those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. He did evade the question from my Liberal colleague previously. This motion does not have anything to do with the Prime Minister. It has to do with a former Liberal MP.
In that vein, would my hon. colleague accept that this motion be expanded to look into former Conservative MPs Dean Del Mastro and Rob Anders, if he is found guilty of evading taxes?