Debates of March 25th, 2021

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National Defence

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member seems to think that I might be shy in terms of asking questions. I would ask if there would be leave of the House to allow me to continue to answer any number of questions members would like to ask for the rest of the day.

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

I believe the member has—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I would like to propose an amendment to the minister's motion that we continue with the debate today: He could remain and answer questions for the evening, after the hour of ordinary adjournment, until midnight.

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

I think we are entering into debate.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the intervention earlier today by the member for Timmins—James Bay. He talked about filibustering and accused the Liberal Party of filibustering.

This member also talked about filibustering, but the funny thing is that if we google “filibustering” and end up at the Wikipedia page as it relates to Canada, there is no mention of the Liberal Party. As a matter of fact, it is just the Conservative Party and the NDP that are mentioned there.

I would note that the NDP holds the record for filibustering in the House—

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, do we have a member here who can only participate in an intelligent conversation by using his Wikipedia notes to—

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

That is debate.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, former member David Christopherson filibustered for eight hours in 2010. In a PROC meeting earlier this summer, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby actually bragged about the fact that he had the record, and that is how I knew it, for the longest filibuster.

I am wondering if this member could shed some insight into whether or not he really thinks—

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, just on issues of personal space, I am very worried about the coronavirus, so could the member move down about eight rows? I am worried about him intervening in my personal space.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

We have the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands answering the point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find it very troubling when the member is making points of order that are completely not points of order, and he knows it. It is especially offensive because this member routinely calls out the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan online about intervening and interrupting when people are speaking.

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

We are entering into the realm of debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I hope you are going to make sure to deduct the time spent on those points of order.

On the issue of filibustering, I have witnessed many filibusters over the years. One of the more intriguing ones was by the member for Carleton when there was a budget debate. The member for Carleton literally consumed every hour of that debate, except for the last 20 minutes, so that he could let the New Democrats speak before we actually came to a vote. He denied everyone else the opportunity to speak. That was on the floor of the House.

Not to be outdone, the NDP did it too, a few years ago. We could talk about David Christopherson and other members. I have seen many filibusters and have had to put up with them.

Filibustering is done for a reason. I suspect there is a very good reason for what is taking place in our standing committees. There is a good rationale for that.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, what we have here is a perfect example of a Liberal technique on display, brought to us by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader's railing against the opposition simply for pointing out that Liberals have not a shred of credibility left as champions of women's rights, based on what has been happening at committee.

It seems the government is saying that if a big lie is told often enough and loudly enough, eventually Canadians will believe it. Is that what the parliamentary secretary is trying to do here?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, no, not at all.

I would never disappoint my daughter, who is an MLA in the Manitoba legislature. I will always be a champion for women's rights. I would like to think that all members of the House would do likewise.

Whether it is the Prime Minister of Canada today or Stephen Harper, who was prime minister when the Vance issue first came up, I like to believe that even Stephen Harper, at times, was there to champion women's rights.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question that relates more to democracy.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said that the opposition was not being honest, among other things. I would like to quote something the House leader said this morning:

“As a result of the actions of the opposition today, like the approach of the government in 2010, I say here today that ministers will instruct their staff not to appear when called before committees and that the government will send ministers...”

I have to wonder. If a motion is adopted by the majority of the House, I do not understand how the government could not respect it. It seems to me that this is what democracy is all about.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I can appreciate what the member is saying, and I would ask her and the Bloc members to read page 30 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. It makes it very clear that it is the ministers who are accountable, and we have gone out of our way to ensure that there is a high level of accountability.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, let us start, of course, at the beginning. In the beginning, this Prime Minister created a program that already existed. That program is called the Canada summer jobs program, and it is a program that lets young people work for charities, small businesses and other organizations that serve the community. The federal government simply reimburses a share of the wages paid to that student employee.

Now, the Prime Minister was suddenly hit by a lightning bolt that caused him to think it was necessary to contract out the very same program that had been functioning for so many years, and with such great success, to a group that just happened to have paid his family half a million dollars in speaking fees and expenses. He told us that there was no other way this could have been done. He told us that a bureaucrat in the employment department, the very department that has been running the successful in-house program for decades, concocted this scheme to give the money to this particular organization called WE.

The entire government's defence, as the member for Langley—Aldergrove will be saying, as I am splitting my time with him, is that the Prime Minister had nothing to do with any of it. The defence is that a mid-level bureaucrat rammed it all down his throat, and he was suddenly hit with a surprise attack at a cabinet meeting, when he apparently pushed back and said, “Hell no, I'm not giving all this money to my friends. Come back to me in a week and I'll reconsider”. That is the basis of his defence.

There is only one problem with this defence and that is the documents. Let us start with correspondence between the WE organization and the Prime Minister's own senior adviser, Ben Chin. Craig Kielburger, the founder of WE, sent Ben a message about the program. The message read, “Hello Ben, Thank you for your kindness in helping shape our latest program with the gov't. Warmly, Craig.”

We would think that, if Ben actually had no role, and that it was in fact a mid-level employment department bureaucrat who did it all, he would write back and say, “Craig, thanks for the message but you're being far too kind. I had nothing to do with setting up that program. It was designed by an employment department bureaucrat, with no involvement from the PMO. I wish you well in all of your future endeavours”. However, he did not write that. Instead, he wrote, “Great to hear from you Craig. Let's get our young working!”

In other words, he was not for a moment suggesting that the message he got from Craig Kielburger was wrong, but rather, he was validating that it was, in fact, right.

If Mr. Chin has nothing to hide, and if he played no role in setting up this program, then surely he will have no difficulty coming, as this motion from the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes has proposed, and testifying under oath to explain his lack of involvement in establishing that very program. He would have to be careful because he would be followed by Rick Theis, the Prime Minister's director of policy and cabinet affairs.

Mr. Theis is the man who puts things in front of the Prime Minister at cabinet, so he would know if the Prime Minister really did push back on this half-billion-dollar grant to the group that paid off his family. If so, he would be able to answer very specific questions before a parliamentary committee, putting the whole thing to rest.

That is exactly what we are proposing in this motion. We are proposing that Mr. Theis come to explain who really set up this program and whether the Prime Minister really did push back on paying off this group that had done so much for his family.

What we find instead when we look at Mr. Theis's correspondence with the Kielburgers is that Mr. Theis was actually quite involved in the early stages.

I have a quote directly from correspondence from Craig Kielburger to this senior prime ministerial advisor, “Please find attached an updated version of the project plan and budget.... We appreciate your assistance both on timelines for a decision, and, if relevant, potentially assisting with streamlining the contribution agreement.... [W]e would appreciate a list of names with whom to discuss the youth entrepreneurship program to ensure that it's...[ready] for phase-2 recovery...[plans].”

In other words, the contribution agreement, which again we were told was not the purview of the Prime Minister's Office but was being handled by a mid-level bureaucrat far away on the other side of the Ottawa River, was in fact being discussed between Mr. Kielburger and Mr. Rick Theis, the top advisor to the Prime Minister.

In fact, we have correspondence from Sofia Marquez, a lobbyist for the WE organization. She wrote, “Hi, Rick, Just wanted to let you know that I and, our co-founders Craig and Marc Kielburger are on the line waiting for you. Thank you! Sofia”.

To Ms. Marquez, Mr. Theis responded, “Sorry! Joined!” Then began the telephone conversation between the Kielburgers and this second to the top prime ministerial advisor.

We are now getting to a summary of the program. It says here that Rick Theis spoke to Craig Kielburger, Marc Kielburger and Sofia Marquez, and according to Mr. Theis, the call lasted for approximately 25 minutes, so it was a substantive conversation. The summary states, “WE Charity raised their ongoing work with ESDC on the [Canada student service grant]”. That is the employment department and the half-billion-dollar grant. It continues, “as outlined in the attached document, and a proposal for a social entrepreneurship. Mr. Theis asked WE how what they are proposing for the [student service grant] would ensure diversity of placements. The Kielburgers expressed concern that this type of program would need to get off the ground soon. At no point were expenses discussed, nor any commitment, assurances or advice given by Mr. Theis to WE on any subject, other than to contact the ESDC.” That is Mr. Theis's claim.

It took 25 minutes for Mr. Theis to tell them not to ask him, but to ask ESDC because he has nothing to do with this. How long does it take to say to call someone else because they have the wrong number? They spoke for 25 minutes on May 5, during which time, as is documented here, the Kielburgers were in a rush to get the money flowing. Do members know what happened? On May 5, their expenses became eligible for taxpayer reimbursement.

It was a total coincidence that this 25-minute conversation was about nothing. They would have us believe that this is a Seinfeld conversation. It was a 25-minute conversation about nothing, except that the Kielburgers asked if they could please hurry up because they wanted to get busy spending all that money promised. What do we know, on that very same day those expenditures became eligible for taxpayer reimbursement. This is a top advisor to the Prime Minister, who had nothing whatsoever to do with setting up this whole affair. It is incredible.

These two gentlemen in the Prime Minister's Office would have seen the promotional material that WE circulated in the PMO. Do members know who was in that promotional material? The Prime Minister's mother and wife.

By the way, everyone in the PMO, the boss's wife and mother get money from WE. Maybe take that into account when deciding whether to give them some money. I am sure that Mr. Theis was so nice because he knew that the boss's wife and mother were getting paid by the organization with which he was having that 25-minute Seinfeld conversation about nothing.

The Liberal government might think a half-billion dollars is nothing. To the working people, to the people who are bagging groceries and serving on the front lines paying taxes throughout this pandemic, half a billion dollars is not nothing. They do not get speaking fees from powerful organizations like WE. They work hard every day for their money, and they deserve answers on what the Prime Minister did with that money.

If the government has nothing to fear, if the Prime Minister has any courage, he will support this motion and let us get to the answers.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, on November 5, 2013, there was a vote on a motion before the House. The motion stated:

That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be instructed to examine the conduct of the Prime Minister’s Office regarding the repayment of Senator Mike Duffy’s expenses; that the Prime Minister be ordered to appear under oath as a witness before the Committee for a period of 3 hours, before December 10, 2013; and that the proceedings be televised.

This member voted against that motion. I am curious if he can explain what the difference is between the request that came from the House at that time and the request proposed today. Why would one warrant it when the other did not? It is a genuine question.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, actually, I am glad to have a chance to explain the difference because back in the Conservative era, we were getting in trouble for giving too much of our money to the government. That was the scandal of Nigel Wright. He wrote a cheque with his own money and gave it to the government.

Liberals get in trouble for precisely the opposite reason, which is taking money from the government, or in this case, through third party organizations funded by the government and funnelled to the Prime Minister and his family. Of course, that is the pattern with illegal Liberal law-breaking.

SNC-Lavalin had given countless illegal donations to the Liberal Party, which earned it the right, according to the Prime Minister, to avoid criminal prosecution for bribery and corruption. In the case of the Aga Khan island, the Prime Minister took hundreds of thousands of dollars—

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

We will continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not even going to raise the issue of Bill Morneau because what else can be said about that? Let us talk about the minister, the one from Waterloo. Talk about throwing civil servants under the bus with misrepresentations and falsehoods.

The minister from Waterloo was asked the straight-up question of whether she had met with the Kielburgers in the lead-up to this. She said that she never discussed the Canada summer student grant. Of course, we naively thought that meant she had not met with them, but there was an April 17 meeting. When she was asked about it, she did not remember the meeting. She said nothing.

However, we have Craig Kielburger writing to her, thanking her for setting him up with a civil servant. Over the course of that weekend, the WE group wrote a plan and wrote back to thank that minister. She was asked in committee, and she would not admit to that meeting. Craig Kielburger was asked about that meeting, and he did not seem to remember it. Sofia Marquez, the government lobbyist, was also asked about that meeting.

It is in the documents. The documents show us the clear political connections that led to civil servants being told to direct this program to the WE group.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member rightly points out all the political involvement, whether it was that minister from Waterloo, who is not a public servant but a politician; whether it was the two PMO staffers I just mentioned, whose fingerprints are all over the set-up of this program; or whether it is Amitpal Singh, who then worked for Bill Morneau. I guess to keep him quiet they moved him into the office of the Deputy Prime Minister after Bill Morneau became Bill “no more”.

We have an email transaction from him, an email from Amitpal Singh to Michelle Kovacevic, who is a public servant. We were all told the public servants were just leading the charge to set up this program.

This political staffer wrote about connecting them with Sofia, from WE, and about speaking that day about the Canada student service grant and the work ahead of on the national file. In other words, hint hint, nudge nudge, get to work and get these people their money. That is a message from a political staffer. No wonder the bureaucrats at finance said that WE was “besties” with the finance minister at that time.

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

Madam Speaker, I am looking to find out from the member for Carleton a little about the culture of the Liberal government. We heard of course that it wants to point the guns or the bus at the civil service as responsible for it, but one of the witnesses we are looking to have testify is Ben Chin, who was implicated in the destruction of documents with the B.C. government, the destruction of documents in the gas plant scandal with the Ontario Liberal government and the SNC-Lavalin scandal with the current government.

I am just wondering what it says about a government's ethical views if it has someone like that as the Prime Minister's top adviser.