Debates of Oct. 1st, 2024

Request for Witness to Attend at the Bar of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise to me that the member opposite has been conspiring, has had all sorts of imaginings that have driven him to be the attack dog on anything with even a hint of corruption, and if it is not corrupt, he will still imply that it is corrupt.

The minister he is talking about has not once but twice been cleared by the Ethics Commissioner, yet the member persists in trying to assassinate the character of ministers in this government, whether it is justified or not. I underline the word “not”, because the member continuously, more than any other member in the House, tries to assassinate the character of the individual.

Does the member believe the Ethics Commissioner did his job when he cleared the minister whose character the member is now trying to assassinate?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack there.

First of all, the parliamentary secretary does his best impersonation of a good defence, but he talks about conspiracy. There is no conspiracy. The Liberal Prime Minister was the first in Canadian history to have been found guilty, not once but twice, of breaking the law, and he cannot handle it, so let us talk about the other ministers who broke the law.

The member talks about whether the Ethics Commissioner ruled on the minister from Edmonton Centre. He did not do an investigation, because he is not getting all of the facts from that Liberal member for Edmonton Centre. Just as the member for Edmonton Centre came to committee and said one thing when another thing was true, when he said he had given us all his phone records when he had not, of course the same is true for what he is not providing to the Ethics Commissioner.

Edmonton Centre deserves better than that Liberal MP, and Canadians deserve better than the corrupt Liberal government.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the strength of a democratic Parliament comes from the confidence that people have in that Parliament. When people lie in committee, distort the truth in committee or do not provide the requested documents, it is akin to saying that at the end of the day, Parliament does not deserve people's trust and they do not have confidence in our work. The foundation of everything we do is the trust that people put in us. When witnesses do that before a committee, then the public necessarily questions it.

I would like my colleague to provide details on the importance of having our constituents' trust, but also having trust in the witnesses who appear before a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians elect their representatives. They have sent the 338 to this place, and we have seen now that the Liberal government, on more than one occasion, has flatly refused the majority will of this Parliament. That should concern Canadians. We see in matters dealing with government corruption that the Liberals try to protect people affiliated with them, in this case with the minister from Edmonton Centre's business partner refusing to answer questions, and just like when Mr. Firth from the Prime Minister's $60-million arrive scam refused to answer questions. They do not want to bite the hand that feeds them.

Canadians should expect, and must be able to expect, that when someone comes before a parliamentary committee or before the House, they will answer in a fulsome way and truthfully. Anything less is unacceptable, just as it is unacceptable for this government to continue to defy the orders of a majority of elected representatives.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the work he does on the ethics file. He is doing yeoman's service on behalf of all Canadians. Everybody who pays taxes in this country owes a debt of gratitude to the Conservative Party of Canada for the hard work we are doing to protect the interests of taxpayers from this particular government.

I think the burning question everybody wants to know the answer to is this: Does my colleague know who the other Randy actually is?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe has been here a long time, and he has seen a lot of Liberal scandals, just like the green slush fund case, which even government officials have described as a sponsorship-level scandal. That is the last one that took down a Liberal government. It is no wonder the Liberals do not want to release the documents in the billion-dollar green slush fund and in this case, a scandal that exposes the Liberal minister from Edmonton Centre and his practices in cabinet that are obviously unacceptable to main street Canadians.

The question to the minister was whether he knew who Randy was. He said it was another Randy. The question to his business partner was about who the “other Randy” was. He said he would tell, if the cameras were shut off. He did not. This is something we do need to find out.

What we do know is that when we asked straight questions to the Liberal minister from Edmonton Centre, he would give one set of truths at one meeting and a different set of truths, not the same, at the next meeting. Obviously, it is unacceptable. It does not allow us to get transparency and accountability for Canadians. That is why it is so important that we have Mr. Anderson come here. He can tell us who the other Randy is, even if he just points right over there.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the Conservatives believe they need to pursue these types of issues. As much as they want to do that, it is important to recognize that there are many other issues that Canadians face, issues dealing with legislation we are bringing forward, as an example.

What does the member across the way envision in terms of the time to discuss this particular motion, as well as yesterday's motion? Some might think the Conservatives are using it as a mechanism to prevent legislation from being discussed.

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

Mr. Speaker, accountability really gets in the way of a good Liberal grift. Am I right? Liberals want anything but taking a minute to talk about how they are lining the pockets of their well-connected buddies while Canadians are lined up at food banks in record numbers.

Food banks in my community and in communities right across this country have seen their use double. They are having to expand their hours so they can serve people their groceries in between shifts at two jobs. One in four Canadians is saying they are going to need to use food banks. That is not the unemployment rate, so these are people who are working but cannot afford to feed themselves and their families after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government. Why?

It is because of $60 million to two yo-yos in their basement in the arrive scam. It is $1 billion in the green slush fund with the hand-picked Liberal chair. There is example after example. It is $21 billion to their buddies in the consulting class in one year alone. That is what the Liberals are spending their money on. We need to expose that, because we need to stop it. We need to get Canadians their money back, because they need it. They need every single penny.

I know it is really inconvenient for that member and the Liberals to talk about the consequences of their actions, but that is what our job is here, even if they continue to defy the will of the majority of democratically elected MPs. That is how we know, after nine years, that their time is up.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.

If Mr. Anderson had to put up his vehicles for collateral, he would have had to obtain ILA, because someone else is getting the benefit of that collateral. Did that come out in questioning?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal minister from Edmonton Centre is in business dealings with someone who has a very shady and questionable reputation, to be gentlemanly. That is my assessment of it.

This requires a much deeper look. While the Liberals are already trying to shut down the discussion about this very thing, through the committee process we have exposed the Liberal minister's ties to this unsavoury character. Edmonton Centre deserves better. Canadians deserve better. Mr. Anderson must testify at the bar of the House of Commons.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Trois-Rivières.

Not to brag but to let members know where I was coming from, I already had the opportunity to say, during another question of privilege last week, that I taught ethics for 30 years. I have some political experience from two legislatures. I fail to understand the situation that we find ourselves in today.

Parliamentary committees are not supposed to be a leisure activity for members who are looking to spend their time. Working on parliamentary committees is our job. We are paid to participate and to do thorough, serious work.

I have already had the opportunity to say in the House that job number one of a member is to hold the government to account. Many questions have been asked about the situation that we find ourselves in today. I could call my speech “Finding Randy”, like the game that we played as children. However, it is pretty serious to see a government—I think that it is typical of a government on its last legs—not being able to respect the institutions and the institution, trying to get around the rules and not respecting the requests of the House and the committees. This is a matter of transparency.

I am sure that if my colleagues on the other side of the House were on my side, they would be saying the same thing I am saying. In fact, for many of my constituents, blue or red is the same thing. They have become cynical. They would rather look at the sky and vote light blue because they find it more inspiring. However, what they have noticed in the history of this Parliament is that when members change side, they start cutting corners and stop being reasonable.

Quite simply, the committee is asking for documents and for its order to be followed, and the Liberals are acting as if they do not get it. That is a serious problem, because if democracy cannot happen inside Parliament—some may think I am naive, but I believe in parliamentary democracy—and it does not happen through representatives of the people like us, it is bound to happen on the street. When it does, the law of the jungle prevails. Quite often, contempt for democratic institutions leads to totalitarian regimes. We see that in some countries. When a leader somewhere decides to take over a national government and to impose untested values, people do not acquire a democratic mindset.

I do not understand the government's attitude. With regard to the Sustainable Development Technology Canada scandal, we have just heard a ruling on a question of privilege where the government does not want to provide the reports and documents in a transparent manner so that we can make up our minds. Now, once again, things are getting out of hand at committee.

I get the impression that members on the other side of the House do not take our committees seriously. That is what I have seen. I have seen unanimous motions and reports tabled in the House and then shelved.

Then, the government wants voters to believe in the work that we do here, to believe in us, to continue to not be cynical and to continue to say that they have dedicated representatives who do their job and who meet their expectations. I think that we are far from that.

I see the members opposite hanging their heads and I understand that. I would be ashamed to have to endure such situations over and over again. This is a situation in which a serious ethical error has been made. Regardless of the government stripe, we cannot put up with a lack of transparency. We cannot allow the government to prevent MPs from doing their job of holding the government to account by calling into question potential conflicts of interest. That seems to go without saying. One day, we will see the members opposite sitting on this side of the House. They will be ranting and raving and saying the same thing as me. Likely, the members on this side—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I would ask the hon. member not to bang on his desk.

The hon. member for Montcalm.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize.

As I was saying, we will see people change sides. We can always give them the benefit of the doubt, but they may have the same attitude. When we ask for documents, they are completely redacted. What is the government afraid of? When one seeks a mandate to sit in a chamber like this one, and when one party manages to get enough representatives elected that it can form government, the least it can do is be worthy of being in government and respect the work of all parliamentarians on all sides.

Parliamentarians must be able to do their job, which consists of demanding transparency form the government and holding the government to account. The government must be willing to meet these demands. This government will quite often try to hide behind partisanship. It will try to undermine the merits of the request. Basically, it will try to say that, on this side, we are not being entirely fair and equitable, that it is ill-intentioned to show up and demand accountability.

In this particular case, I hope that no one on the other side would dare say that Mr. Anderson must not provide what he must provide. I hope the government feels responsible for that. They may be trying to protect a minister. It is possible. I am asking the question: When someone has made a mistake, when someone has shown a lapse in ethics, when someone has crossed the conflict of interest line, should that person be this fiercely defended and protected? I would say the answer is “no”. People are watching us. Some have lost trust in this institution. I do not think that most people here deserve such a loss of trust.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would go to the institution, which I have an immense amount of respect for. I think of the standing committees of the House; we have standing committees that meet and do a lot of good work. There is no doubt about that. I suspect that if we did a history of the standing committees, we would find that, unfortunately, witnesses might actually be exaggerating or misleading the committee at times, with respect to the many different issues that are out there. Does the member believe that, whenever an incident of that nature occurs, the most appropriate action is actually to call that individual, whomever he or she may be, to come before the bar of the House of Commons or to continue to pursue the issue through a standing committee? I am not aware of this, and maybe he can let me know: Is the member aware of others who were brought to the bar in previous administrations?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to take issue with this government's respect for standing committees. One example is the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, which prepared a report on a study of the harms associated with breast implants, with unanimous recommendations. The House was told that breast implant illness had to be recognized. This government has done nothing with this except to remind us that, while the Food Drug Administration recognizes this illness, Health Canada and the government believe that there is no reason to consider it to be real. Committee reports are being shelved.

When someone comes to see me in committee, I do not have any time to waste. I want them to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. If they do not, then there are procedures that we must follow. The next individuals who come and give us nonsense, or who do not answer questions on subjects as important as conflict of interest, will think twice before not telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for raising this important question of privilege.

An important context beyond the particulars of this case is that, in 2021, we had someone brought before the bar under this—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I am sorry, but the Speaker had made a decision that I am not to recognize the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan until he apologizes for a comment. I can give the hon. member a copy of this. It reads:

The situation underscores certain principles that should govern our actions in the chamber: first, the importance of not shouting out comments across the floor, and second, to avoid jokes that others would interpret as hurtful or offensive. We all have a responsibility to choose our words carefully. It is in this context that I will invite the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to withdraw his remarks....

I thank all members for their attention.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Mr. Speaker, out of deference to the authority of the Chair, I withdraw the remarks. I appreciate how the Chair acknowledged that I did nothing wrong and there was no ill intention, but the Chair invited me to withdraw my remarks; out of deference to the Chair, I have done so.

Mr. Speaker, may I now proceed to pose my question—

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe there is an understanding that, when a member withdraws their remarks, they do not do it with an explanation of why they did not want to do so. They withdraw their remarks and perhaps express remorse.

As I stated earlier in the House, sexual harassment is a serious issue, and it should be taken very seriously as well. It does not matter what the intent is—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I accept the response.

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking a point of clarification from the Speaker. My understanding is that the member for Etobicoke Centre has not been allowed to speak since March 20, and in that case, he has to apologize. I understand that, in this case, the request is to withdraw. Can the Speaker clarify the difference between the two to ensure that all members are being treated in the same way?

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

Mr. Speaker, in very much the same sense as the member for Kitchener Centre's comment, I would say that this was, at best, a half-hearted withdrawal with an explanation. That is certainly not in keeping with the traditions of this place. The member should fully withdraw and apologize for those homophobic remarks.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I witnessed the exchanges. The Chair accepted my colleague's withdrawal of his words and recognized him. I therefore ask the Chair to continue with this evening's debate.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I appreciate the interventions, and I can help clarify that. I will get back to the hon. member when I have further clarification. However, I did accept the apology and the retraction.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Mr. Speaker, since the Speaker affirmed that no rules have been broken, I am happy to continue with my statement.

We are dealing with potentially the third time in the life of the current government when an official could be brought before the bar. Before 2021, that had not happened since 1913. Twice, since then, during the life of the current government, emerging from scandals, lack of disclosure and various investigations at committee, officials have been called before the bar. This could be the third time.

When we talk about respect for this institution, I think we need to notice how common it has become for elites, whether well-connected lobbyists, friends of ministers or public officials, to think that they do not have to take the directives of this Parliament and its committees seriously. This has been happening at committee when documents are ordered and this has been happening in the House when there are requests, which is why we are dealing with multiple questions of privilege at the same time.

I wonder if my colleague from the Bloc can comment on just how many problems of lack of respect for this institution we have seen under the government, a dramatic escalation in this problem and what can be done to resolve it.