Debates of May 30th, 2022

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

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

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that I hope those who tune in to the goings-on of the House recognize that normally when a government member gives a speech, it is very rare that they receive a question from another government member. However, importantly, the very first question is coming from a government member. Where are the Conservatives to ask me questions right now?

This goes back to the point that, if the Conservatives are so interested in this motion they have put forward, why are they not participating in the debate? Conservatives should have had the first question, and they never asked me a question, yet they put forward this motion today because they are so passionate about the issue. I think it proves my point that they are not interested in anything other than just being obstructionist and burning three hours off the clock, which is what we have seen today.

To the member's question, Bill C-18 is a bill that would help many smaller news organizations, in particular. I think of the Kingstonist in my riding, which is a news organization that started from a grassroots level and has slowly worked its way up. It does not have the ability or the reach to compete with some of these other organizations, but it is very good at reporting on the facts. Very rarely will we know the opinion of a reporter at the Kingstonist. It is reporting on the facts, and we need that now more than ever. We need information that is based purely on fact to be provided to the public so the public can make their own decisions as to how they feel about an issue and not be influenced by a pundit's opinion or objective on one thing or another.

Bill C-18 is incredibly important because it would provide the resources to make sure that smaller news organizations, such as the Kingstonist in my riding, will have the opportunity to continue to do the very important work that they do.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to rise on this point because I think this debate on an ethics concurrence motion is, of course, an effort at time-wasting, but some of the issues are substantive.

I never really had an opportunity to comment on what I made of the WE Charity scandal. Having attended meetings at finance committee, and having watched the Prime Minister's testimony and the testimony of his chief of staff, I came to the conclusion, for what it is worth, that the Prime Minister's Office did not politically interfere in this at all. It was Rachel Wernick, as a chief public civil servant, discovering that the Prime Minister's favourite pet project to deliver the program for youth was not yet up and running, and civil servants who I think were embarrassed to tell the Prime Minister that the youth service corps was not up and running, who scrambled to find something to cover for an announcement that had already been made. It was the civil servants who came up with the WE Charity as a possible way to deliver the program. That was my conclusion from watching the evidence.

However, I still think we should have been able to get to the bottom of it so all Canadians would have some assurance that we knew what this was. Also, the fact that it got called the “We Charity scandal” points to some other issues that I think are important, and one of them is that we really do need to amend, reform and modernized Canada's charity laws.

This is a roundabout way of saying that I had some thoughts on the matter, but I have never had a chance to get them on the record, and for that I thank the Conservatives for raising this concurrence debate. However, my thanks are rather overwhelmed by my frustrations that we are not debating Bill C-18.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opinion of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands as to what the results were. The Ethics Commissioner, in his investigation, came to the conclusions that he did, and that was it.

The member talked specifically about the WE Charity and its involvement in this, but let us not forget that, at the end of the day, WE Charity supported and helped a lot of children throughout this country. However, for no reason other than political gain, Conservatives were willing to walk all over that because they thought they could get an ounce of political gain out of it, and that is what they did.

WE Charity is not a Liberal organization or an NDP organization. As a matter of fact, the provincial government of Manitoba, in multiple budgets, awarded money to WE Charity to do work in Manitoba. WE Charity was an organization that many Conservative MPs had visited, frequented, participated in and encouraged.

WE Charity only became a lightening rod when the Conservatives decided it was time to use it as one for political gain. Up until that point, the Conservatives were all about WE Charity. Both Conservative MPs and Conservative governments throughout Canada routinely built funds into their budgets to give to WE Charity to do work for them.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the presenter from the other side for his unique viewpoint on how the facts may or may not have occurred. It is quite surprising how the government has continuously tried to cover up the WE scandal.

If the Liberals are so open, honest and transparent, then why was cabinet confidentiality not lifted in this case in order to have the real facts and everything on the table? Unfortunately, that was not the case. Could the member explain to me why cabinet confidentiality was not released?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the Conservatives for finally participating in the debate. I had to wait for three questions before they decided to be interested and ask me one. We listen to the rhetoric from the member talking about the WE Charity, ethics and a violation, and this and that, but I will remind him that the Ethics Commissioner determined that the Prime Minister had done nothing wrong. The Conservative member looks surprised when I say that right now. Just because his caucus members might be telling him that something was wrong, the Ethics Commissioner did not determine that.

I would encourage him to go back to read the report from the Ethics Commissioner because the Conservatives utilized a national charity that supported thousands of children, and with all due respect to my friends in the Bloc and the NDP, they were right along with them during the process. They utilized the charity, at the expense of those who would benefit from it, for political gain. The member is continuing to do it right now, even after the Ethics Commissioner came to his conclusion on it.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I love how over-the-top this is coming from the member for Kingston and the Islands, but he said there was nothing wrong. The previous finance minister was found guilty of breaking ethics in the WE Charity scandal. Just because the Prime Minister did not break the law this time, it is not like Liberals did not. Their finance minister did. How can he be so over-the-top, looking down his nose from his high horse and saying that nothing is wrong with this report when the finance minister of the country broke the ethics rules?

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

Madam Speaker, it is because the previous question was about the Prime Minister. If the member wants to talk about the previous finance minister, then yes, the Ethics Commissioner came to a conclusion and the information was out there, so why do we still need this report?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join this debate on ethics and the role that ethics should play for the people who govern our country.

This report is about whether we should re-evaluate what happened during the WE Charity scandal but, throughout my speech, I am going to cover many ethical lapses that have happened with the government. I will also talk about some of the things that people in Regina—Lewvan and across Saskatchewan and Canada would actually like to see this chamber debate.

I have listened to a few speeches now from the members of the opposition, the members for Winnipeg North and Kingston and the Islands, and they are talking about how the government has been nothing but a blessing for Canadians across the country. They are talking about how they cut taxes for the middle class in 2015, without really having the realization of what is happening in 2022 and putting the lens on.

We are getting past COVID-19. They still want to bring it up, and they still want to make everyone across the country afraid, but if we go to every country across the world, people are moving on. It is now time for the government to move on past COVID-19 and start looking at what it can do to help control inflation and the rising cost of living, get people back to work full-time, get all Canadians the ability to travel, get rid of restrictions, and stop stigmatizing and dividing Canadians at every turn.

The Liberal government has not met a wedge issue it has not tried to take advantage of with Canadians. Liberals have not missed an opportunity to try to pit Canadian against Canadian. Whether it be western Canadians against eastern Canadians, or people who made a personal health choice to take a vaccine or not, they will continue to try to pit Canadians against Canadians. That is something that us on this side, as Conservatives, have always fought against.

We have always had a consistent message: vaccines are available for those who want to take them. We needed to get to a high vaccine rate, which Canadians did. Canadians did go and get vaccinated, but we should not penalize people who have made a different choice. They should be able to go to work and raise their families. They should be able to travel, not only within Canada but also outside of Canada as well. We have people in the country who are not able to travel within their own country. They cannot get on a plane. They cannot get on a train. That is something we should be discussing in this chamber and questioning the Liberal government as to why it continues to try to stigmatize Canadians. Those are the debates we should be having.

We should be having debates on policy and on ethics as well. That is important.

Time and again, the government has used time allocation to stifle debate. In the magical fantasy land the member for Winnipeg North has brought forward in his speech, Conservatives try to stifle debate. We try to have debate as often as we can because we believe that it actually brings forward better legislation. It has happened, a couple of times.

It has happened, a couple of times, where we have added to the legislation. I remember the early times of the pandemic in 2019. We had debates, and we made programs better. That is hardly stifling. They did try to sneak past a piece of legislation that gave them the right to tax and spend for two years completely unfettered, which, once again, shows that every time there is an opportunity or a crisis, the Liberals will continue to try to seize more and more power so that they have the ability to do whatever they want, whenever they want. That actually should be their next campaign slogan in 2025: “Liberals: we can do whatever we want, whenever we want. Just trust us. Heart over hand.”

I digress. One of the things that I hear in Regina—Lewvan constantly is the fact that we need to fight the rising cost of living. We have brought forward opposition motions. We have brought forward ideas on how the Liberal government could help people out.

Over 50% of Canadians are finding it hard to put food on the table. That is not the sign of a good, prosperous, well-run government, when 50% of Canadians are unable to put food on the table. Plus, we have seen it and people have seen it, all across their provinces, that the rate of visitations to food banks continues to increase. That is a sign of troubling times ahead.

We brought forward an idea in an opposition motion a few weeks ago. Why not finally scrap the carbon tax? It continues to punish Canadians who have to drive to go to work. It punishes Canadians who have to heat their homes. It punishes Canadians who have to continue to try to buy food that gets trucked in to the grocery stores. Northern and remote Canadians get punished more because, when their food gets trucked in, the prices of everyday necessities continue to rise. Those are the debates we should be having.

The Liberals talk about the tax cuts they had for the middle class in 2015. They are not helping anyone anymore. The price of gas and every essential good has gone up so high that those tax cuts have gone back into government coffers. The government and the Liberals need to listen to what Canadians are saying, not just their Liberal insiders and Bay Street buddies. They need to hear how much harder it is for Canadians to get by, and it is going to get harder. Members may or may not believe this, but they want the carbon tax to go up to $150 a tonne. Imagine being a single parent who is trying to decide whether they can put gas in their vehicle to take their kids to sports, music or drama, or whether they can buy the essential goods of food and medication if they need it. That is ridiculous. When does it end?

We continue to bring forward positive suggestions and the Liberal government continues to slap them down and bring more rhetoric forward. Time and time again we talk about people coming with questions about whether the government is doing the right thing. The Liberals continue to show that the only people they are willing to listen to are those who already agree with them.

The reason they like time allocation is they do not like debate. They do not like to hear opposing views. They show it in their actions. They showed it in their actions in February when people came to the chamber and wanted to talk to representatives about how they were feeling during COVID‑19. I cannot even imagine the type of frustration some people must have felt when they came to Ottawa to try to talk to a member of the Liberal cabinet in person and they would not be heard. They were good people who came here and wanted to be listened to because it is their right. It is the people's Parliament, and not one Liberal took the opportunity to have a conversation with them. I have gone through a few conflict negotiation classes, and not one of them ever said that conflict negotiations do not include dialogue. We need dialogue to resolve a conflict.

I think the Liberals like some of the conflict that is going on right now in our country. I think they enjoy seeing the divide between Canadians, in some way. That is why this building is one of the only places that still has a mask mandate in place. We have asked constantly to see the science and have asked why we still need to wear masks just on Parliament Hill. If we go to receptions all around downtown Ottawa, we see members opposite and members from all parties not wearing masks at them.

Let us ask this question. Why is that still in place? Maybe my hon. colleagues will talk about the BOIE, but the Liberals now have a majority on the BOIE with the NDP and can vote in whatever they want, so really it is up to them to decide when restrictions will be dropped here on Parliament Hill.

Moving on, restrictions should be dropped elsewhere. I do not know if members have been to the Toronto airport lately, but it is an unmitigated disaster right now. These are very tough times with the restrictions and some of the vaccine mandates. People would be at work today at the Pearson airport if there were no vaccine mandates, and they could be helping get rid of some of the backlogs and making air travel more smooth.

Those are some of the things we should be talking about, but the Liberals continue to bring in time allocation.

This is an opportunity to bring forward something else that is also important to people across the country: When are we going to have some confidence in our democratic institutions again? That goes straight to the heart of ethics and the ethics report. People see a decline in democracy in our country and they are losing faith. I hear it in the conversations I have in Saskatchewan with people from Regina—Lewvan. A lot of people who come to my office ask why we cannot get rid of these guys and ask what is going on in our country. Some people feel our country is a laughing stock right now because of some of the policies the government has put in place.

People are travelling to the States or over to Europe and they see how life there is returning to normal. When they come back home, they find that travellers from other countries who come here do not understand this because a lot of people have moved on. It is a difficult thing, because now these decisions and policies, which are really out of touch with most Canadians, are being propped by the junior party, the NDP. It is propping up the Liberals now. Technically they never won a mandate for a majority, but they stole a majority government from the mandate they got in 2021.

That is something people have a really hard time computing. They are asking how the Liberals have a majority when they never were awarded one by the voters in Canada. When they talk about the co-operation, they understand that sometimes parties have to co-operate, but how could they give a blank cheque to the Liberal government to govern until 2025 and not show what was agreed to on the blank cheque? We have asked many times for them to show the documentation of what was in the hidden deal that was signed in the back rooms of Ottawa that allows the Prime Minister and the government to stay in power until 2025. What were the priorities of the NDP?

A lot of us who live in western Canada have seen some NDP governments, and they have had a lot of different priorities from those the federal NDP does right now. I am pretty sure Tommy Douglas would not even be part of the NDP right now in Ottawa because he would have a lot of different views, especially around fiscal policy. Some of my friends have seen some NDP governments, such as in Winnipeg, for example, that have had a lot more fiscal responsibility than the current NDP members in Ottawa have.

That comes to the crux of the argument. When we are looking at supporting the government, from my standpoint, if I was a New Democrat, I would also look at how I could support a government that has this many ethical violations. My friend from Kingston and the Islands actually had to answer the question when I said the WE Charity maybe did not say the Prime Minister was guilty, but it did say the former finance minister, Bill Morneau, was guilty of breaking ethics rules. There was also the “Trudeau Report” and the “Trudeau II Report”, which show the Prime Minister has broken ethics rules on several different occasions.

When we are talking about an ethical government, people at some point in time in the next little while are going to wonder if they can continue to vote for a government that has so many ethical lapses. I think that does go to the heart of the debate in this chamber, and it goes to the heart of the debate on what is going to happen if the government continues to have ethical lapses.

For example, we just saw another one. The Minister of National Defence gave a sole-source contract to a friend for $16,000. That has come out in the last couple of hours. The Minister of International Trade gave a sole-source contract to her friend for $17,000. Also, who can forget Frank Baylis's sole-source contract? There was couple million dollars for that one for ventilators, and he does not even have a company that makes ventilators. It goes on and on with these ethical lapses, so the question that comes to Canadians is, how much is enough and when is it enough?

Also, it does not have to just be contracts. We have seen this time and again in other areas of the government. Continuously we see it among insiders and Liberals who are well connected to the Prime Minister and to the front bench. We have seen it from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, from New Brunswick, who has had a few questions come up about some of his appointments. I think members might remember they had to go through a Liberal donation registry before they had the opportunity to do some other things. These are some of the questions that Canadians continue to ask us, which we want to bring forward on the floor to debate, because I think there is a higher expectation of government than what the government has had.

I was an MLA in 2015, and I remember watching the Prime Minister debate Stephen Harper and talk about how sunshine is the best disinfectant. Do members remember that?

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I heard a “hear, hear” from the member for Winnipeg North. I wish the Liberals still believed that. I also wish the Prime Minister still wanted to lead the most transparent and open government in Canadian history.

[An hon. member]

He does.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I heard “he does”, but he does not, because he is only the second Prime Minister to break the ethics rules not once but twice.

It is unbelievable for the government to say it is going to be the most open and accountable government in Canadian history and then continue to bring forward legislation that curtails freedom of speech, curtails freedom of expression and curtails what Canadians can put on the Internet on their own personal pages. How does that make it the most open and accountable government in Canadian history? People are looking for more. Something the government is really falling short on is making sure that people have hope for the future.

There are reports that the optimism of Canadian business owners is at an all-time low. If we talk to anyone in agriculture right now, we hear that people do not know how they are going to afford the inputs. This is a direct result of some of the policies put forward by the government. Let us look at what the cost of fertilizer is going to be for this year, with a 30% reduction, a completely arbitrary number, in emissions in the fertilizer industry. Basically, the only way the industry is going to get there is by lowering its outputs. Less fertilizer means that agriculture producers are going to have less fertilizer to put on their crops because they cannot afford to put more on. In turn, that means there is going to be less food available to Canadians and people around the world. That is the result of some of these arbitrary emission targets that the government has put into place.

I do not think some members of the Liberal government have thought about what the consequences are. I know a few have because, in doing the right thing, a few have voted in favour of a private member's bill that would lower the cost of the carbon tax on agriculture producers. One was the member for Kings—Hants and another member abstained. They have talked to agriculture producers and realized the impacts that these policies are going to have on the people who produce the food we consume.

Some of these ideological crusades that the government has been on for the last seven years do have real-life impacts on Canadians across the country. I am not talking about just western Canada, although western Canadians are the ones who produce the food that feed the rest of our country. It is not all of it but a lot of it. These impacts are compounding each other. Some of these policies were put in place not by malice, but maybe simply because sometimes the people who are putting them in place do not understand what is happening in agriculture in western Canada and the differences we see in our country.

There are a few other issues we can talk about. I have some time left, and there is a lot more I want to say.

I want to talk about the residents of Regina—Lewvan and the effects that some of these policies have had there, and some of the causes and effects of ethics. When the government makes decisions and gives some sole-source contracts, it is giving money to Liberal friends. However, it is also leaving out some of the people who are creating jobs and creating wealth in their communities.

Small business owners have had a tough time over the last couple of years. I talked to one of them, who owns a restaurant called Rock on Albert Street in Regina. He said that with how much money he has paid in carbon tax for heating and cooling the building, he could afford to hire another two staff members if he did not have to pay the carbon tax. Two people in Regina could have a job in one restaurant if there was not a carbon tax. That is something the Liberals really have to think about.

Another thing that this carbon tax is affecting in our country more than the Liberals probably realize is the budgets of school divisions in Saskatchewan. The school divisions have to heat their schools in the winter and keep them cool in the summer. Our temperature fluctuates a fair bit in Saskatchewan. It snowed on the May long weekend.

What the school divisions are seeing in their budgets, which are getting squeezed tighter and tighter, is that the carbon tax is taking tens of thousands of dollars out of them. That could be used for an EA, for another teacher or for the expense of fuel for busing. Some people do not understand how much people have to ride the bus in rural and remote communities. Fuel is also needed for heating and cooling schools. That is the equivalent to probably one or two EAs in a school division per year.

The Liberals talk about putting Canadians first and talk about having Canadians' backs. We need to bring forward good public policy to try to help out and make sure that the lives of Canadians get easier and more cost effective. We need to control inflation and the price of living. That is what we are hearing from Canadians. I hope that when we have another conversation, we will be able to talk about the Liberals being more co-operative in the House.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, I listened very closely to my colleague from Regina—Lewvan talk about how he wanted more time for debate, but he did not really debate. He stood for 10 minutes and told us why he does not like the Liberals. We hear from him often that he does not like the Liberals and his neighbours do not like the Liberals and nobody likes the Liberals, but the fact is there was a democratic election a few months ago and we are on this side and they are on that side and we have a job to do. We have a job to pose good ideas, to bring good ideas forward. He talked about important issues of affordability that are affecting our neighbours and the rising cost of living, but he did not propose any solutions or give us any ideas. He just said that it is a problem.

He was standing in the House for 10 minutes saying the government does not have any solutions, which we do, because poverty is at an all-time low and joblessness is at an all-time low, and there are a lot of other things that we could talk about. We are going in the right direction. He did mention how the price on pollution is affecting some Saskatchewan schools. I had the opportunity to google it and I am proud to reiterate that there were 160 upgrades to schools, and the price on pollution provided Saskatchewan with upwards of $60 million for that. My dad used to live in Regina. Saskatchewan is a small province, so $60 million goes a really long way.

He also talked about how COVID is over and we should stop wearing masks. I am not trying to scare anybody as he suggested, but I want to remind him that in the month of May 1,700 people died in Canada from COVID, and if that says “COVID is gone” to the member, then I do not know what to say, because Canadians are still dying and a responsible government has an obligation to stand up and protect them.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate it when the member stands and shows his incompetence once again. I actually talked for 20 minutes, not 10, so he did not listen to my whole speech. I did provide some solutions. One was to axe the carbon tax so that people could afford gas, so that people could drive to work. On schools, I love the Liberal argument so much because it shows the Liberals' complete and utter incompetence when it comes to fiscal policy. If we are just going to give the money back to the schools through a carbon tax rebate, which does not give it all back, we should not take the money from them in the first place. We should let them use it right off the hop.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am a first-time parliamentarian and I sit on the ethics committee. What we are looking at when we look at reports is precedence. From what I know, we have not studied this report, since the last Parliament was dissolved when the election was called. I only know what I have learned from the news, so it can go different ways depending on what people are reading, but we know that Parliament did not get a chance to see that.

Was the report presented to Parliament? Did Parliament get to look at those recommendations? When we talk about precedence, did we get to see how these kinds of reports can be reported to Parliament in the future and how Parliament deals with it? Are we dealing with ethics? Right now in the news we have another Liberal member being investigated. We want to look at all of these things fairly. Has the report been looked at? Is there precedence that we need to look at these reports and get them finished and put to bed?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, one of the ways the Liberals usually deal with reports when there are troubling times is proroguing Parliament or calling an election. Usually we do not get to deal with them because when it gets really difficult, what they do is cut bait and run because they do not want to see what the final results are.

I would like to see more opportunity to have this go back to committee, investigate it fully and make sure that when we see the final report, we have a good process going forward so that when the next Liberal ethical violation happens, we already have a template to make sure that we are able to deal with it properly, efficiently and in a fair, non-partisan manner.

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

Madam Speaker, the member said “cut bait and run”. We literally went back to the electorate and said that it was time for them to weigh in, and they had the opportunity to get rid of us if they did not want us. That is what happened.

What I find really interesting about the member's speech, and I have a lot of respect for the member so it is nothing personal, is that about two-thirds into his speech he started to talk about how if the Conservatives keep reminding the public and telling the public about this and that, then eventually the public would not have trust in the government anymore and it would not elect it. That is the entire strategy of the Conservative Party. It is not about, “Hey, public, this is my idea. What do you think? Do you think you want to support us because this is a great idea for Canadians?” No. The whole premise behind everything the Conservatives do is trying to attack individuals so they can prove to Canadians why they should not vote for this side of the House, instead of proving to them why they should vote for that side of the House.

Does the member not agree that perhaps the Conservatives should spend less time focusing on trying to dig up and manufacture outrage to upset Canadians about the government, and more time actually proposing to Canadians what they would do if they were in government? Is that not what this democratic process is all about?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I do enjoy the banter back and forth. If there was ever a master class to give on how to outrage Canadians, it is the Liberals'. I do not remember, but in the 10 years of Stephen Harper, how many mass blockades were there on Parliament Hill protesting government policies? Zero.

The member yells that the Liberals did not encourage them, but they did by their terrible policy. They did by stigmatizing and dividing Canadians. They did by creating two classes of Canadians. If people want to take a master class on outraging Canadians and making Canadians so upset that they would knock on the doors of Parliament to have their voices heard, they should talk to the Liberals.

Any time the Liberals want to have a policy debate on economics, any time they want to have a policy debate on world affairs, foreign affairs or the military, I would be happy to meet them anywhere for a debate on whose policies are better for Canadians, whose policies are better to lower inflation, whose policies are better to lower the cost of living and to make life more affordable in Canada, because the Conservatives would win a policy debate with the Liberals any day of the week.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the member that he gave an excellent speech. It was very well informed.

The member from across the way stated that, as opposition, my colleague is just bringing up all the horrible or terrible things the Liberal government has done. I find it quite surprising. Is it not the role of the opposition to actually find out what is going wrong, how we can do it better, or in what ways we could improve upon things that are happening?

Could the member from my side discuss how we, in our role as the opposition, are trying to make sure we get all the accountability out in order to inform the Canadian public as to what has happened?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is a fair question. Lots of people wonder what the role of the opposition is in government.

The role is to make sure that government legislation does get better. We have some very thoughtful but maybe critical arguments on some of the legislation, for example Bill C-11. I do not think the government should be legislating the Internet and regulating what people can and cannot see. I believe in free speech. The Liberals do not. There is another example. I do not think people should have to pay a carbon tax on the gas they use in their vehicles, on the equipment they use to seed or on the machinery they use to grow food for people across Canada. I do not think schools should have to pay carbon tax on their heating. I do not think there should be a carbon tax on bussing kids to school in Saskatchewan. These are policy debates we could have.

The Liberals say, “But they get it back.” My question or comment, and Premier Wall made the same comment, would be this: If the government is just going to give the carbon tax back to Canadians in boutique tax credits, why take it in the first place? Please, why do we not let Canadians keep the money in their own pockets?

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

Madam Speaker, we are the ones who got rid of the boutique tax credits. By the way, it is a tool to use in the marketplace to incentivize consumer choices; that is why we do it like that.

Let us get back to what the member said earlier. I actually really appreciated the beginning of his response to that question. He said their job is to critique legislation and to make it better. He said to look at Bill C-11, and that he did not think the government should be doing that.

That is not what the Conservatives are doing, though. The member and his party are not coming here and saying they want to make the legislation better. They are coming here and putting up every single roadblock possible to prevent anything from happening. That is not their job.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, our job is to make sure that bad legislation does not pass. That is what we continue to do, because the Liberals have brought forward bad legislation a number of times and it did not pass.

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate on the concurrence report.

I want to say something for my constituents back home who have been wondering what this is. Oftentimes, I have to explain to residents in my riding what exactly Parliament is doing during report stage like this. It is the opportunity for any group of members in the House to highlight a particular report that is coming out of a standing committee of the House. This means that a group of parliamentarians met. They met with witnesses, discussed it, had analysts go over it and then agreed on a set of recommendations to report back to everyone in the chamber and everyone in the House of Commons. It is an opportunity to weigh in on the contents.

This particular report goes back all the way to June 2021. The reason the government was not able to respond to this report was that we had an election in August 2021, one that many of my constituents believe was wholly unnecessary because it was an election done during a national pandemic and they do not believe it was needed. It returned mostly the same results all across the country, including in my riding, so I make sure that when I rise, I thank my constituents for sending me back here for a third time and, I will note, with the second-largest vote count, once again, across all the Canadian ridings. I always lose out to my friend and colleague from Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, who has an even larger riding than I do, with even more electors to serve. He consistently gets more votes than I do.

This report goes back to June 2021. The report was on what is colloquially known as the WE Charity scandal. It is one that I have received a lot of emails about, especially at that time. I have a lot of constituents who continue to ask me about it. I probably get five to 10 emails and a few phone calls a week still asking me whatever happened with that. They always ask about the follow-up on it. What was the follow-up? What was the outcome of it? I often refer them to this report, and I have not heard back from the Government of Canada on whether it is going to act, whether it is going to respond or whether it knows about it.

That is what is happening today. This is a concurrence report debate. We are going to want to hear from members in the House of Commons on the report.

What I thought I would do today is actually go through the 23 recommendations of the report so that my constituents back home can better understand what the follow-up was from the WE Charity scandal. What did parliamentarians do? From whom did they get information? To whom did they give recommendations? I am still hoping the Government of Canada will respond to these recommendations and implement some of the findings so we can do better.

In this House, we often debate legislation and amendments. Some of those ideas are then taken up in particular committees. They discuss policy ideas and hear from witnesses. Experts come in from the government side, and officials try to weigh the pros and cons with parliamentarians. It is also an opportunity for parliamentarians to get on the record on particular issues they care about. I have served on many standing committees of the House, so I have some measure of facility with these particular rules and how it is supposed to work.

Then, when members write the report, they are hoping to get as much agreement at the committee level as they possibly can. It is always interesting in a minority Parliament, where the government does not always have a majority of the votes available to it. Nowadays, with this coalition agreement between the NDP and the Liberal caucus, it is a unique situation where there is effectively a majority at the committees for the government, but then the NDP also gets to pretend that it is an opposition party.

That list of recommendations is what I want to go into. I want to read them into the record, just to provide an opportunity to have that debate. I intend to report this back, through my newsletter, to my constituents on Friday so they can see there was an actual debate in the House on the WE Charity report and these were the recommendations. I can maybe provide some of my ideas and feedback on the contents.

Recommendation 1 was on cabinet decisions:

That the Government of Canada consider making mandatory, prior to all Cabinet decisions on awarding a contract or contribution agreement, an evaluation and determination as to whether a conflict of interest screen, agreed upon pursuant to section 29 of the Conflict of Interest Act by a public office holder and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, should be put in place for any member of Cabinet, as a preventative measure to avoid conflict of interest.

This is a perfectly reasonable recommendation. I am glad the committee was able to report back. This is a committee chaired by a member of the official opposition.

This is infinitely reasonable. I do not see why anybody in the House would oppose having an ethics screen to ensure that decisions are being made by cabinet ministers at the cabinet table who understand where every single person is coming from and if they have any particular reasons for maybe wanting to recuse themselves from that debate. I think it is perfectly fair and it should be done.

“Recommendation 2 on decisions made in the Finance Minister’s Office” states:

That the Government of Canada make mandatory, prior to decisions made in the Finance Minister’s Office, an evaluation and determination as to whether a conflict of interest screen, agreed upon pursuant to section 29 of the Conflict of Interest Act by a public office holder and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, should be put in place for the minister or any public office holder involved in that decision and that it conduct a review to examine how groups not registered to lobby were able to have direct access to the Finance Minister.

That is a lot in a recommendation, I would say. Now that he is not a member of the House, I get to say something generous about the former member for Malpeque, Wayne Easter, who used to counsel rookie members, as I was two Parliaments ago, to keep recommendations short. If we want the government to listen to us and understand what we are trying to do, we should keep recommendations short. If Wayne is listening for some reason, I miss him dearly. He was a good committee chair who was very fair.

To explain this to my constituents, this is fairly simple. This is a catch-all for this growing concern that there are groups out there lobbying or advocating on behalf of a group: an association, perhaps, or a group of concerned citizens. Typically in the past, we would not require them to register as lobbyists because they were like a public advocacy group. They wanted some public good to come from their talks with a minister's office, a minister or a department. What has evolved over time is that these groups are in between. They have a pecuniary interest and a public advocacy interest. The WE Charity fell into this type of grouping, and this is where many people have concerns about how they were able to get this Government of Canada program tailor-made to their own benefit. That is where there were a lot of concerns for people.

This is a good recommendation. It is seeking clarity on how to capture that particular group so that information is provided to the public and the public can then make a judgment call on whether it is right or wrong. It would also ensure that in the future, those types of public advocacy groups know when they have crossed the line from advocacy to actively lobbying for a pecuniary interest they may have.

Recommendation 3 states:

That, given the failure of [the member for Waterloo] to reveal her 17 April 2020 meeting with Mr. Craig Kielburger, a review of ministerial accountability to committees must be undertaken.

Recommendation 3 is one of the recommendations I like, not because I have any particular issues with the member for Waterloo, but because ministerial accountability to standing committees of the House is under threat. I remember many years ago that in a certain committee, I believe it was the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, a certain member, maybe the chair occupant at the moment, wrote a letter with others being highly concerned that the Auditor General was being tasked with more and more audits and was not able to conduct them.

That is an issue I have seen consistently now across many committees: A minister is invited and either the minister refuses to come, which is typically not a direct refusal, but a refusal due to scheduling difficulties; or the minister could come only at a certain time or for a limited period; or the deputy minister, the assistant deputy minister or the parliamentary secretary is sometimes offered instead. Accountability in the House of Commons has to come from the ministers. They are at the apex of their departments. They are supposed to be the ones held accountable for the management and administration of everything that happens in their departments, and they are supposed to be held to account.

These are the most powerful men and women in Canada in our political system. These individuals have drivers and very high salaries. They make decisions that literally have serious impacts on people's businesses, livelihoods, families and whether someone can enter or exit Canada. Profoundly, they should be held accountable and it should not be too much to ask that ministerial accountability in this Recommendation 3 be reviewed to make sure that we have only the highest standards for them.

In fact, I would say the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, PACP, has the highest standard of any committee before the House of Commons. The expectation is that only the deputy minister can come as the financial officer for the department to explain him or herself, and ministers are expected to come and explain the running of their departments and the details of what the departments have done with the monies that have been given to them, because they are stewards of the resources of the taxpayers, and that is what this whole place is supposed to be about. There was a reason we agreed on the fields of Runnymede, where the first members of Parliament met. The exact thought and idea was to keep the Crown accountable for the way it was spending money and the policy decisions it made.

Moving on to Recommendation 4 and record-keeping in the context of a meeting with lobbyists, it states:

That the Government of Canada implement a mandatory rule requiring, except in exceptional circumstances, that senior public office holders be accompanied by at least one staff during any meeting with lobbyists for the purpose of taking notes.

I am a great lover of the access to information system. I believe it is broken. I filed an ATIP, I remember, with the Department of Defence in 2020 and I had to launch complaints in order to obtain documentation. Back in June, the Privacy and Information Commissioner found that 13 or 14 of my complaints were justified in order to release access to information documents. Those notes are taken by staff. Those notes taken by public servants in such meetings would be available. They are not transitory documents. They would be available for an access to information request that is dutifully filed by a member of the public, a member of Parliament, a senator or whomever. I think it is the minimum to expect: that public office holders can make information available to the public on request obviously through, in shorthand, the ATIP system.

There are 23 recommendations. I do not know whether I will be able to go through all of them. I do have a Yiddish proverb. I will come to that and explain how it ties in to all of this, too. I will just move on to a few of the other recommendations that I have highlighted for myself because I think these are the ones that some of my constituents have raised with me before.

Recommendation 13, regarding compliance with orders from the House of Commons, states:

That the Government of Canada comply with orders of the House of Commons and not block testimony of key witnesses in studies relating to conflict of interest and lobbying.

While this is a good recommendation, I would expand that recommendation even farther for the committee. The House of Commons is supposed to be the highest political body in the land. The Government of Canada, which is represented by the cabinet ministers here, is held accountable by the House, including the members of the back bench on the government caucus side. Their role as well is to hold the government to account.

To their credit, some of the members have, I know, held the government accountable for decisions made. That can take on many different forms. It can be critiquing the government, heavily criticizing it in a very negative way. It can also be offering up amendments and offering up solutions. It can be voting down certain measures. It can be abstaining on certain measures to make a point. It can be public advocacy. It can be with petitions. There are any number of ways to achieve that goal, but I have seen now in the House the government defy the House of Commons, and at times obstruct the House of Commons. It even obtained documents, as with the Winnipeg lab situation in the last Parliament.

I think it is critically important for constituents in Alberta, but also across the country, to know that the elected officials they send actually do productive work for them: We actually fulfill a constitutional function on their behalf, which is accountability. That is what this place is for. It is to demand accountability from the government, receive and obtain it back. I could actually expand this recommendation far more broadly to include many more things.

Recommendation 15 is on the use of new technology. I often get residents back home asking me about the House of Commons. The way and manner in which we conduct business seems a little archaic to them at times. Recommendation 15 states:

That the Government of Canada refrain from using any new technology that has the potential of violating the privacy rights of Canadians until it has been examined by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and given the parameters of use.

I think that is a very reasonable one. Since the time of this report, I think there have been more concerns raised by members of the public on how the government obtains their private information, how it uses the information, how it shares it across departments and how international organizations may obtain and use Canadian-obtained information on our citizens. Where does it go, how is it used and what is the purpose?

I think more transparency in this situation would make people feel far more comfortable knowing that they can track what the government is tracking on them, and know what the government knows about them. I think that is entirely reasonable as a safeguard recommendation, so that is what I wanted to highlight to constituents back home.

Another recommendation I wanted to highlight is Recommendation 20. On oversight and accountability during emergencies, it states:

That the Government of Canada establish oversight and accountability mechanisms specifically designed to ensure rapid and transparent allocation of federal funds during emergency situations.

This was far before the protests in Ottawa, and far before the illegal blockades at our borders. This was way before any of that happened. This was specifically dealing with emergency situational spending, and there was an attempt by government ministers to allow themselves two years of unlimited taxing and spending during the pandemic.

We had to meet on Easter Saturday in order to discuss and debate the bills. I remember debating Bill C-20, in a previous Parliament, that had such a complex mechanism in it for the allocation of funds. I even asked the minister during the COVID-19 special committee that was meeting in the House about it. I could not make heads or tails of the bill, and I asked the minister to explain it to me and take as much time as he wanted, because I honestly could not grasp how the bill was going to function. I had accountants in my riding asking me questions on the emergency relief programs and how they were going to work. This recommendation is absolutely critical.

We saw, in the House of Commons, the government try to direct funds, and not go through all the accountability measures during an emergency. On one side, we have to account for the fact that it was an emergency and the government was trying to ensure the safety of its citizens during a global health pandemic, but I think that the right question to ask is: How could we do this better? What could we do differently? That is what this recommendation is asking. It is asking for a specific design to ensure rapid and transparent allocation of federal funds during emergency situations.

I am not as well versed in the estimates as I should be, but the member for Edmonton West is, indeed. He is far more interested in them than I think most members of the House of Commons are. He has a finer knowledge of where the money goes, and there are many people who would rely on his expertise. I think that is fair to say. However, that is where accountability happens, and the estimates are quite a Byzantine process that is hard to understand for many. I often have questions from constituents who ask me: “How is this government money spent?” I usually refer them to the Public Accounts of Canada, and then I call them and we have a walk-through over the phone on where they can find the spending details. I think it is reasonable, and something the government should be working on, to make not just the budget side, which are the proposals on how to spend, but the accounting side, accounting for how the money was spent, and informing Canadians of where the money went.

A good example that I can give members is that there was a promise a few budget cycles ago, I think it was in budget 2019, to spend $1 billion on rare disease programs. It was in two tranches of $500 million over two fiscal years. I still cannot figure out where that money went and where it is going. I have been here almost seven years, and I am still trying to sort out where that money is going. I tend to file some Order Paper questions to discover where the money in this particular situation went.

Lastly, I want to raise Recommendation 23, because it talks about contracting. It states:

That the Government of Canada provide an independent organization, such as the Office of the Procurement Ombudsman, the powers necessary to proactively review departmental contracting processes, including their use of sole-sourced contracts.

That has become even more important now that we have found out that the Treasury Board has been allowing people to slice contracts to under $25,000 to allow themselves the opportunity to sole source them under that limit. We are not allowed to do that. The Treasury Board has been very clear that we are not allowed to cut contracts in two just to fall underneath the $25,000 limit. One minister is writing an article today and being published.

“One who wants to know is better than one who already knows.” I will admit that this is a Yiddish proverb. I have gone through the contents of the report that we are debating today, and I would like to know if the government is going to actually implement the recommendations. Which of these is it going to implement, and which is it going to review? The report was dropped in the last Parliament and resurrected in this Parliament, and now we can have an opportunity for debate and for a vote. I want constituents to know, back home in the riding of Calgary Shepard, that this is part of the representation and work that I do on their behalf.

The WE Charity scandal, I think, shook the confidence of Canadians in the government's ability, specifically cabinet's ability, to deliver on major government programs. It shook their trust in the government. A series of scandals led to that particular one, and I do not think that the government has recovered from that loss of trust. It is one that will go on into future governments as well. It is a shaking of trust in our institutions when we should be shoring up our civic institutions, strengthening bodies such as Parliament and strengthening standing committees of the House. We should be ensuring that members of Parliament have the resources they need to hold the government to account, whether that is through better measures in the House: better tools, such as Order Paper questions that are maybe reported faster, or that have an obligation for a response from the government, and a clear response would be even better. It could also be through more obligations to release more documents publicly, and more obligations, as listed in this report, to oblige the government so that we can know. This is where I think the proverb is most important. It is better that we all know.

With that, I will take my seat and I will be happy to take questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his intervention today, and particularly for focusing on some of the recommendations that he thought were important.

There were some other recommendations that never made it into the report. They were part of a dissenting report that I think would have been equally, if not more, beneficial for policy creation. That was specifically with respect to the committee conducting, at its earliest opportunity, a full statutory review of the Conflict of Interest Act as well as the Lobbying Act.

Could the member comment on whether he thinks that looking at those particular acts would be more beneficial in ensuring that issues raised in committee and raised in the public were properly, and more efficiently and effectively, dealt with?