Debates of May 30th, 2022

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for referring to that dissenting report the committee agreed to and sent to the House of Commons. I will refer to recommendation 11, though, which is on the powers of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada. It is “That the Government of Canada introduce legislative changes to the Lobbying Act to give the Commissioner of Lobbying real powers to investigate, issue fines and impose lobbying bans to those who disregard the Act.”

I think it is much better than that other recommendation, which was asking for a review. Here the committee agreed to direct the government, saying, “Do these things. This is a good idea. Change this part so the Commissioner of Lobbying has some teeth and can actually do their job and prevent future wrongdoing.”

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Shepard for giving a shout-out to the vital estimates process. It really is the reason Parliament exists. In a lot of ways it goes back to King Edward saying “What touches all should be approved by all”.

With regard to the part of the WE scandal that was particularly odious, I am glad he brought up ministerial accountability. In the Treasury Board rules, the President of the Treasury Board is the guardian of the public purse. He or she should be the person caring for the public purse and making sure the rules are followed. In the WE scandal, the government ignored what is called the official language analysis. That is when a government program that has an interchange with both the English population and French population in Canada has to go through the official language analysis to ensure that the service can be delivered in both official languages. This is not a suggestion. It is a rule.

We heard from the President of the Treasury Board that they ignored this official language analysis in order to push through the money for the WE organization. I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about accountability and transparency when the very person in charge of guarding the public purse turns a blind eye to assist in a program that would benefit friends of the Liberal Party.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I regret that the member caught your eye, because that member is from Edmonton, and after the 5-4 beating on May 26 that the Calgary Flames took, I do not find it very fair to let him speak.

He is absolutely right. If we have Treasury Board rules that are set out, we have to abide by them. That is the whole point of having them. When we have a situation of cabinet ministers allowing government programs to be not subject to particular rules, there is very little accountability when this happens. Rules are simply being suspended ad hoc without information being provided to the public, to the House or to members of Parliament so that we can decide whether this is the right decision to make. This is the whole crux of the matter. There was so much internal waiving of the rules on an ad hoc basis that it created the perception that there was this massive scandal brewing within the government, and then it exploded into the public, and rightly so.

The member for Edmonton West is correct that this should never have happened in the first place, and Treasury Board directives must be followed by the government.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Calgary Shepard for his speech.

I was listening to him carefully, and at one point he talked about the fact that we are here to work seriously on legislation for the real world. We are talking about the WE Charity scandal, a very important issue that we should have dealt with over a year ago. That was delayed through what I would call questionable political gamesmanship. It is a good thing that we are talking about it.

I would like to ask a two-part question. First, in my colleague's opinion, after these three hours of debate, what will we get as an outcome, as accountability from the government and as changes in the future?

Second, although we are dealing with an important issue, does he not think that it is a shame that we dropped the debate on the important bill that we were supposed to deal with today and on which the NDP-Liberal coalition slapped a gag order on us earlier? The people who were supposed to speak today will not. This has happened a few times in the last few weeks. I have a feeling that June is going to be a long month.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé just asked two questions.

First, I hope that, after these three hours of debate, we will end with a vote on this issue so that the House can say, on behalf of Canadians and Quebeckers, that what we ultimately want is for the government to take this report and its 23 recommendations seriously and follow through on them.

Second, it is not the job of the official opposition or the Bloc Québécois to facilitate the passage of government bills. That is supposed to be the job of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. It is entirely his fault if the government does not manage to pass all the legislation it wants to before the end of June. It is his responsibility. I do not believe it is up to us to facilitate the passage of legislation that, sometimes, is not well written. Our job at committee and in the House of Commons is to ensure that each bill that reaches third reading stage in the House is a bill in which we have confidence.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague the hon. deputy House leader brings up a very important point about debate in this place. What I see and what I have referred to today as you were in the chair is a decline in democracy. It seems as though bills are being rushed through. Very important pieces of legislation are being rushed through this place without proper debate and without proper input on behalf of members of the opposition. This decline in democracy that we are seeing is very real, as things are moving straight to committee rather than being debated in this place.

I remind members that there are millions of voices represented in this place. There are millions of people who sent members of Parliament here to be their voices. I wonder if the member can comment on his perception of what we have been seeing throughout our institutions, which is a decline in democracy.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I entirely agree with the opposition House leader. That was an excellent question, and I could not have done it better myself.

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

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time. The question is on the amendment.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the amendment be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like a recorded division, please.

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

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 31, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Finance

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Finance that, during its consideration of Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, the committee be granted the power to divide the bill into two pieces of legislation:

(i) Bill C-19A, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and other acts, containing divisions 26, 27, 29 and 32 of Part 5 and Schedule 3 of the bill,

(ii) Bill C-19B, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, containing all the remaining provisions of the bill.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, here we are again, and it is ironic that the last question we heard from the House leader was about not having an opportunity to debate issues. We just went through the process of listening to a concurrence debate for three straight hours in the House, for nothing more than for Conservatives to prevent any form of legislation coming through and being adopted by the House.

What were we supposed to talk about today? I realize we only have a few short minutes remaining in our official day today. What were we supposed to debate today? It was Bill C-18, a bill that the Conservatives, at least in their election platform, support. It is an idea that they brought forward and that they ran on. They were interested in helping independent small news organizations throughout the country when it was an election. Once they were elected but realized they were not going to form government, they suddenly no longer had an interest in advancing this objective for Canadians.

I hope that Canadians are watching this today, because they are now seeing not one but two motions introduced into the House for no reason other than to purposely obstruct the business of the House and to make sure that debate on Bill C-18 cannot continue today, which is just remarkably ironic. The irony is literally oozing through this place right now, after the member for Barrie—Innisfil just stood up and asked his deputy, “Oh, tell me more about why it is we do not have the opportunity to debate in the House. Why are they rushing through all this legislation? Tell us how important it is, deputy.”

What was his response? His response was, “Oh yes, what an incredible question the opposition House leader just had there. He hit the nail on the head. Are we not all so great?”

Do we see what is going on here? I hope that Canadians are tuned in to this today, because what we are seeing is, time after time, Conservatives obstructing any way possible to get any legislation through the House.

They are laughing right now, but we are talking about a piece of legislation that they put forward in their election platform. They ran on it, and now that it is before the House, an opportunity to pass a piece of legislation that everybody will agree on because it is in the best interest of Canadians, what are they doing? Routinely—

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

The member for Barrie—Innisfil is rising on a point of order..

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, we would like a vote on the motion, and then we can get to government business after that—

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

That is a matter of debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, by the way, to the member for Barrie—Innisfil, I want to extend my best wishes to his former colleague, the Liberal candidate Jeff Lehman, who is running in Barrie in the upcoming election on Thursday. I send best wishes to Jeff. I hope he is successful in the provincial election and that he becomes a good Liberal MPP representing the city of Barrie, providing representation that I know is so badly needed right now in Queen's Park.

To that member, I would hope that he would extend that congratulations—

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

The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies is rising on a point of order.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, this member should know that this place is the federal Parliament for the country and not the provincial parliament for Ontario, so I think—

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

That is not a point of order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, I guess that one stung a little. I apologize. I will get back to the subject at hand.

What is happening in the federal Parliament right now is that the House leader for the opposition is not doing his job. Because, quite frankly, the Conservatives are leaderless other than him right now, his job—

[An hon member]

Thank you. I am the leader.

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

Madam Speaker, finally the member for Barrie—Innisfil has informed Canadians that he is leading the Conservative Party of Canada. It certainly is interesting to know that because Canadians have been wondering, as have I and so many other people, but to know that the member for Barrie—Innisfil is now the de facto leader of the Conservative Party of Canada truly is eye-opening and refreshing. It certainly would explain the hostile nature of the House and the way it is deliberating.

Back to my point, the job of the House leader for the Conservative Party, the official opposition House leader, is to coordinate his MPs to make sure they play a constructive role in developing better policy for Canadians, which will impact their lives and make their lives better, and the one policy we want to talk about so much is a policy that they ran on in the last election. They ran on the supports in Bill C-18, but they were not interested in—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. There is some yelling on this side of the House and some participating when there should not be, and I would just let members know that there will be 10 minutes of questions and comments, so if they have any thoughts or questions, they can jot them down, and they will get an opportunity to ask questions and make comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, what I was saying was that the Conservatives' job here is to help inform policy and to make policy that is better for Canadians. What do they have before them? It is not only a policy the government feels would be better for Canadians, but a policy that the Conservatives ran on, a policy that they are interested in and a policy they saw as beneficial, at least during election time. Then, they lost the election, and suddenly they are no longer interested in these policies for Canadians that they ran on.

The opposition House leader instructed his MPs to put forward a concurrence motion earlier today, which burned three hours of House time. We have spent three hours debating a concurrence motion of a report that this Parliament's ethics committee did not even produce. It did not do the research. It did not study it, and it did not create the recommendations. The Conservatives literally grabbed the report from the last Parliament and retabled it as their own in this one, then they moved a concurrence motion on it, which is rare on its own, let alone on a report that was not even from a committee in this Parliament.

After the opposition House leader did that, he asked the question earlier through the member for Calgary Shepard about more debate time and wanting more debate, notwithstanding the fact that they had already filibustered the motion we had to give them that.

Members might remember Motion No. 11. That motion was about giving the House more time to debate issues, because the Conservatives were concerned that they were not getting enough time, but then they filibustered Motion No. 11, which was to give them more time. Now, the member comes forward and moves another motion still within the motions proceedings we are in during the daily Routine Proceedings, just to kill more time.

If it is, indeed, true, and the member for Barrie—Innisfil is the de facto leader of the Conservative Party now—