Debates of May 5th, 2022

Government Response to Petitions

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

St. Lawrence River Capacity and Protection Act

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-271, An Act to give legal capacity to the St. Lawrence River and to provide for measures respecting its protection.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured to rise in the House to introduce this private member's bill to give the St. Lawrence River the right to defend and protect itself.

We know that we are experiencing a major environmental crisis, likely the sixth mass extinction, and the mass destruction of our ecosystems. The current legislation and our economic model are inadequate and are not working. That is why we in the NDP feel we need a paradigm shift to adopt a new approach focused on granting rights to nature.

There is a huge international movement under way, in countries like Mexico, New Zealand, Ecuador, Panama and Colombia, to confer rights on natural entities. That is what we aim to do, in co-operation with local communities and first nations in the area, so that we can protect the St. Lawrence River, the source of so much wealth and pride for all Quebeckers.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Employing Persons with Disabilities Act

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-272, An Act respecting the development of a national employment strategy for persons with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the employing persons with disabilities act, with great thanks to my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, for seconding the bill.

This legislation would provide for the development of a national employment strategy to increase the economic participation of persons with disabilities. Across Canada, persons with disabilities continue to face barriers and stigma when looking for work, seeking accommodation or trying to advance in their careers. As a result, over 400,000 working-age Canadians with disabilities are unemployed despite being willing and able to work.

People with diverse needs also have diverse skills and have a great deal to contribute to our society, like my daughter Cerys, her friends Calum, Melissa and Elliott, and many others. We must do more to support their participation in the workforce.

I call upon all parliamentarians to support this vital initiative because when people with diverse abilities succeed, we all succeed.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

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

moved that the third report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, presented on Thursday, March 31, 2022, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise this morning to speak to the third report of the committee, and I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

All of us can recall the summer of 2020 when news was emerging about the WE Charity scandal and how impactful that was to the debate in this country. Of course, Canada was at the height of a pandemic, and we were seeing all kinds of programs being announced. The WE Charity scandal came to light as a result of media reports that spoke specifically of sole-source contracts to WE Charity for the implementation of a program that the government in some way felt was going to benefit young people. However, what it was benefiting was the Liberals' friends at WE Charity, the Kielburgers.

All of us were seized, through the summer of 2020, with the committee reports and the committee proceedings. The Prime Minister testified. Other very serious allegations were made. People testifying before the committee talked about the impact this was having on Canada in general and about the fact that the $900 million given to the charity for a program was a direct financial benefit to that organization.

Canadians were definitely seized with this, but again, this was a pattern throughout the hundreds of billions of dollars that were being spent. The deficit at the time was $400 billion, and we saw an increase of $1.3 billion. Many programs were being put out to help support Canadians, and the Conservatives initially supported many of those programs at the onset. However, then we started seeing a pattern develop. It is a historical pattern with the Liberal Party whereby its members start taking care of their friends and family, the connected and corrupted insiders who were benefiting directly as a result of this.

There are numerous examples of this that have been publicized, not the least of which is former Liberal MP Frank Baylis receiving $237 million for ventilators that were never delivered. There was the $150 million provided to SNC-Lavalin for mobile hospital beds. I am still waiting for a response to a letter I wrote to the Auditor General about what happened to that money.

However, nothing came to the attention of Canadians more than the WE Charity scandal, and the opposition party at the time was really trying to get to the bottom of what was going on. Of course, subsequently we heard concerns about fraud within the organization. I remember that a witness from the United States, Reed, whose full name I forget, was talking about the money that he had given to the WE Charity thinking it was purposefully being used for good. However, we saw exposés on television shows about how the WE Charity was recycling announcements about money and people were calling into question where that money was going.

Our job is not to provide an indictment of the WE Charity. It is to provide oversight, despite the fact that I think the government does not want us to do this. As the official opposition, it is our constitutional obligation to hold the government to account, verify, account for and provide transparency so we know where this money was going.

As the committee studied this issue, numerous reports were produced, not the least of which was the third report of the ethics committee on this issue. There were serious concerns about the minister at the time possibly providing false information to the committee.

There was contempt. Despite the will of Parliament, there was contempt on the part of three connected members of the Prime Minister's Office and the government. They did not show up and were told to obstruct the work of the committee by not showing up. Within this timeline, numerous questions of privilege and points of order have been raised on this. However, at the end of the day, what ultimately happened was the government used procedural tactics to avoid any and all accountability related to the WE scandal.

When things got really hot for the government, members will recall that the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. In 2015, when he ran, he said that he was never going to use prorogation as a tool to dodge accountability and transparency. However, things really started heating up, and it was a political firestorm at that time in 2020, when not just the official opposition party but all parties, including the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, were forcefully trying to get to the bottom of the WE Charity scandal.

We believe there are unanswered questions. We believe there is still work the ethics committee can do with respect to the issues that I brought forward about ministerial accountability and about the accountability of the individuals who were directly involved in this scandal. They should come before committee and answer the questions that need to be answered to get to the bottom of the involvement of those particular individuals as it relates to the WE Charity scandal.

As I said, in 2020, the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. He reset and had a throne speech, and everything that was on the Order Paper and on the table was basically off the table at that point because that is what prorogation does. The committee reports and committee studies that were being done were basically ended at that point. However, that did not end this issue, because there were still questions that needed to be answered.

As Parliament resumed again, which was well in advance of this coalition agreement that has now come to light between the NDP and the Liberals, the NDP was forceful. I remember watching those committee hearings and listening to the member for Timmins—James Bay and the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. They were forceful in getting to the bottom of the WE Charity scandal. However, what we are hearing now is relative silence from those members; they do not want to talk about it anymore. Of course, the Prime Minister went to an election just last year, and any of the work that was continuing fell off the table again because the Prime Minister decided to use an election to hide all of the issues. The reason these types of scandals are so profoundly scandalous is that there are well-connected insiders who are benefiting as a result of this pandemic.

I rise today to propose an offer to the government House leader. The offer is that we move through this debate for the next couple of hours and then have a vote on it. We can find out exactly how all members intend to vote. With a recorded division, members will have to stand up, including NDP members. If we get to that point, I will make the offer to the government House leader that we extend the sitting this evening to do the work that Motion No. 11 calls for and debate what the government deems as important pieces of legislation. I apologize, but we are giving enough notice to extend the sitting into tonight.

We have to get to the bottom of this. We have to be able to vote on this motion to refer it back to committee so that the committee can continue the work and pick it up. I am hopeful that despite the Liberal-NDP coalition, the NDP will do the right thing, vote on the motion and get this back to committee so that we can get to the bottom of it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago when the Deputy Prime Minister stood in this place and presented, through the House of Commons to all Canadians, budget 2022-23, a budget plan that I believe has been accepted quite well across the land.

For me personally, what I have witnessed, day in and day out, is a Conservative Party that continues to use what I term character assassinations, whether of the Prime Minister or other ministers, as opposed to getting into the substance of the debate. That is what we are supposed to be debating today. Instead of going into this ridiculous motion, the opposition House leader wants us to focus, and continue to focus, as he has for the last six years, on personal attacks.

Does the member not feel any obligation to Canadians to have some sort of a discussion on the budget?

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member missed what I proposed. What I proposed was that we get to a vote on this, that we move concurrence on this, get it back to committee and extend the hours so that we can do the work on Bill C-19.

Conservatives are willing to work. We are willing to work, and that is why I put that proposal. Only a Liberal would think that accountability and transparency are a character assassination or a personal attack.

We are responsible, all of us on all sides, to Canadians for the way money is spent in this place. If money is spent in an inappropriate manner, then the Liberals, for the sake of all Canadians, should want to get to the bottom of this as much as we do, as well as any member of the NDP and the Bloc.

I encourage the government to accept the proposal. Let us move to a vote on concurrence. We will stay late till midnight tonight to debate Bill C-19.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I like hearing the member, even when he gives the same speech three times in a row. All members are honourable, except that he said a number of things that are factually incorrect. He contradicted you on a number of rulings that you have already made. I think the official opposition House leader has a responsibility to respect the Speaker's rulings, which have been repeatedly contradicted by what Conservatives have been saying in the House.

For two months, we have had the Conservatives block everything in the House of Commons. When they are not putting up this committee report, and this is the third time the member has given the same speech on this one-paragraph report, they put up other reports. They have blocked Bill C-8. Teachers and farmers implored Conservatives to let it get through the House, yet for months they blocked it.

Now we have the budget implementation act, which puts into place two important things for the good people of Barrie—Innisfil. As colleagues well know, national dental care, which the NDP pushed for and forced the government to put into place, would actually help 29,000 people in Barrie and the immediate area. The national housing that the NDP has forced the government to finally invest in would also have significant positive impacts.

My question is very simple. The ethics committee has a responsibility, of course, to do its good work, but why are the Conservatives systematically blocking all pieces of legislation in the House of Commons? Why will they not allow good things to happen for Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not lost on any of us that the NDP House leader is parroting the Liberal government's talking points, since they are now connected at the hip and have been connected since the start of this Parliament. Subsequent to the coalition agreement, the NDP has supported the government on 95% of the legislation. Before that, from the time Parliament resumed up until the point of the coalition, they supported the government on 89% of the legislation. There is a consistent pattern there, and the House leader parroting government talking points is not a surprise to me.

We did offer to extend the hours to midnight, and I am wondering why the NDP does not want to work.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I want to remind members that the quicker we can ask the question and the quicker we can get an answer, the more people can participate in these kinds of debates.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this place and talk about the issues that are so important to Canadians. Before the Liberals and their partners in the NDP jump up and suggest that somehow accountability, ethics and a government that has this thing called character are not important, I would simply remind all members of this House that it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that we uphold the highest level of integrity that is possible in this place.

I rise to speak to this particular motion, and not for the first time. It is troubling to me that there have been continued efforts by the government to shut it down. With the amount of effort that the government puts into shutting down debate on the ethics investigations of the alleged criminality of the Prime Minister and many of the other challenges that the government has faced when it comes to accountability, ethics and the lack of integrity that it has shown over the last six and a half or so years, it screams from the rooftops. I hear from my constituents each and every day, and I am not exaggerating, how there is this culture of corruption that has grown, which has truly shaken the trust that Canadians need to have in their institutions.

My comment to all hon. members of this place is that the opposition House leader made a very clear and reasonable offer, so this will truly be a test. Was Motion No. 11 simply a power grab by the Liberals, or are they willing to take the official opposition up on our offer to have a fulsome debate on this important issue, the concurrence motion on “Questions of Conflict of Interest and Lobbying in Relation to Pandemic Spending”, an investigation that has been shut down multiple times in previous Parliaments and, unfortunately, in debating a similar motion in the last number of months? Our offer is very clear, that the opposition House leader would be that other House leader who would endorse a late sitting tonight.

Because I know the Prime Minister said he does not think much about monetary policy, I will do a bit of simple math. It would take about three hours for this concurrence motion to be done, and there would be about six hours of debate that could be done on the issues that the government finds very important. The government is quick to point out that Conservatives are conducting a character assassination, but there would have to be character for it to be assassinated.

It is ironic that whenever we talk about government accountability, I have heard more times than could be counted, between the heckles and the speeches, the government blaming Harper. The Liberals are quick to do so. Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper has a lot of free rent in the heads of Liberal members. They will talk about things that happened prior to seven years ago. In fact, in the early days of the pandemic, when they were looking for somebody to blame and could not find a reason to blame Harper, they even blamed Mulroney, and I find that very interesting.

It is interesting how time and again the Liberals are quick to say they do not want to look at ancient history when it comes to the Prime Minister's conduct. They do not want to look back at things that happened, such as in 2016, with the alleged criminality and the decision tree that we saw where the missing piece was provided by the Prime Minister to what could very well result in a fraud charge. Canadians deserve to know if their Prime Minister is a crook, and it is certainly a question that I hear on a—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, you will notice that even during the Senate scandal with Stephen Harper, I never called the former prime minister a crook. I think “crook” is an unparliamentary word and the member should retract it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We have had a lot of unparliamentary language in the last few days. I would ask the member to take that back and rephrase it.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw that particular word, although I would simply note that it does have a particular historical relevance that certainly was in reference to the actions of history that I am sure many who have studied political history from around the world—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for St. Catharines is rising on a point of order.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was asked to withdraw his comments. One cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly, and he is doing that very thing. He is trying to continue to use that unparliamentary word. He is doubling down on it. He was asked to withdraw. He sort of said he withdrew but then continued on to defend himself.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I would love to drag this on longer than we have to. I would like the member to retract and then move on with his speech.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did retract it, and I certainly apologize if I offended the sensitivities of any members in this House who are quick to defend the Prime Minister and the allegations regarding his possible criminality.

Here we are today, and as I mentioned before, many Canadians are very concerned about the actions of the government, so we have made a very simple offer. It is to let us allow debate on this concurrence motion. We would then be happy to allow debate on the Budget Implementation Act, which I believe is scheduled for tonight. That is reasonable.

The government talked often about how it was not engaged in a power grab. This is its chance to prove it. When it comes to the report we are discussing here today, we have incredibly important items and a host of recommendations, which were agreed to by a committee in the last Parliament and by the committee in this Parliament.

There are 23 recommendations that have to do with accountability. We have recommendations related to cabinet decisions, decisions made in the minister's office, ministerial accountability, record-keeping when it comes to lobbyists, the outsourcing of projects, due diligence reports, contracting with shell companies, answers on the specifics related to what happened with the WE charity and some of the questions that are still outstanding on that, the fact that those who speak French in this country were unfairly not being given the same access to federal programs, more on lobbying, giving powers to the Commissioner of Lobbying to ensure that they have the teeth to get the job done in accountability and integrity within lobbying in Canada, volunteer programs, compliance with orders of the House of Commons, the powers of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and the use of new technology and some of the challenges associated with that. I could go on, but I would note I am running out of time.

I am certainly curious as to why the Liberals seem to be so bent on not talking about what I would suggest are important issues. Certainly, we have the committee, which the Liberals say often are the masters of their own destiny. When it comes to what we have before us today, it is vitally important that we are allowed to have the debates in this place that matter to Canadians and integrity, ethics and accountability are at the core of that.

As I mentioned, this is the chance for the Liberals to demonstrate this or be shown to have been entirely misleading over the course of the Motion No. 11 debate. We can move forward with a discussion about how Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and I would note to the Prime Minister, because I think he gets confused about this, we are loyal to the Crown and the country, not loyal to the Prime Minister. Conservatives are working hard on behalf of Canadians and the place that we have within this institution. Therefore, this debate matters.

I move, seconded by the member for Calgary Shepard:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:

“the third report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, presented on Thursday, March 31, 2022, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the committee for further consideration, provided that:

(a) the committee be instructed to

(i) make every effort possible to receive evidence from Ben Chin, Rick Theis and Amitpal Singh, the witnesses who did not comply with the House's order of Thursday, March 25, 2021, to appear before the committee;

(ii) consider further the concerns expressed in the report about the member for Waterloo's failure ‘in her obligation to be accurate with a committee’;

(iii) report back within 60 sitting days; and

(b) the committee be empowered to order the attendance of the member for Waterloo, from time to time, as it sees fit.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The amendment is in order.

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Pickering—Uxbridge.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about reasonable timelines, so I want to ask him about some the Conservatives have had. When they ousted two of their leaders, it only took a few months. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was ousted only three months after the election due to his own party's spending scandal and the member for Durham was ousted after only four months—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is rising on a point of order.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is not speaking to the amendment. She is just spewing verbal graffiti.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We are getting into debate. However, I would recommend that the member for Pickering—Uxbridge ask her question.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will get to my question. I am speaking to the member's comments about reasonable timelines.

The member for Durham was ousted as the leader after about four months, and the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle after about three months, yet it took the Conservatives over five months to bring us to a vote on Bill C-8, which helps teachers and farmers. Therefore, when the member said that the members of the Conservative Party are working hard, is it that they are just working hard to find themselves a leader who might win in this country?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is that sort of absurdity that Canadians are sick and tired of. When it comes to this thing called democracy, we have it within our caucus.

I would ask the member if she voted to eject the former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada Jody Wilson-Raybould. Did she vote to support her leader during his many ethics violations? That caucus is complicit in the corruption that the Prime Minister and his cabinet bring to the governance of this country each and every day, and I hear from Canadians each and every day about how they are sick of it.