Debates of Oct. 10th, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. I am not surprised at the Conservatives. Again, it is the crocodile in the room. They are saying, “Don't look at our past. Don't look at what we did when we allowed torture and suppressed documents.”

Let us get to the documents that Stephen Harper refused to turn over. His refusal to turn over the documents resulted in him being found in contempt of Parliament. That is the kind of man who represented the Conservative Party. Speaker Milliken said the refusal to turn over the documents struck at the “very foundations” of the parliamentary system, not that Stephen Harper, a good friend of Orbán in Hungary, cared that he was striking at the very heart of the parliamentary system, that all of the Conservatives went along with attacking the very fundamentals of our parliamentary system, or that it violated the Constitution. Stephen Harper did not care about that.

Errol Mendes was speaking at one of the parliamentary hearings looking into the Afghan detainees when he said:

The executive is really placing itself above Parliament. For the first time that I know in Canadian history, the executive is saying we are superior to Parliament...This is nothing more than an open defiance of Parliament. Nothing more, nothing less.

Let us go back to the crocodile metaphor. Of all the crocodiles that Canada has had, Stephen Harper was the ultimate crocodile. Here was a man who was in open defiance, who said he was superior to Parliament, and all the Conservatives went along. We have never heard a single Conservative mention we have a direct case of a prime minister not turning over documents. It is because if they were in that situation, they would never turn over documents. Stephen Harper would not turn over the documents. What did Stephen Harper do? Well, he always hated the democratic process anyway, so he just shut Parliament down. Do members remember that? Our Conservatives do not have much memory, but I will remind them. Stephen Harper shut down our democracy rather than work out a process for obtaining these documents.

Here we are now, in 2024, and what are the Conservatives doing? They are shutting down our democracy. They are making it impossible for us to do our work. They are running these endless questions of privilege when it has been ruled by the Speaker to send the issue to committee to be studied, so we can get a ruling. Who knows? Maybe we will find the present Prime Minister in contempt of Parliament. However, the real contempt of Parliament is the Leader of the Opposition, who believes in a policy of chaos and vicious attacks, and who will do anything to obstruct the work of Parliament. That is the real issue here.

We have a Liberal scandal that needs to be addressed. The Conservatives do not care. They work on chaos theory. They talk to us about transparency, accountability and corruption; oh my God, from the Conservative Party? How far back do we need to go?

Again, I am always amazed. Brian Mulroney was caught accepting money in a brown paper bag in a hotel room. I mean, that is normally what bikers and drug dealers do, but do former prime ministers of this country accept brown paper bags of money in a hotel room? Well, he was a Conservative leader, and that was not transparency and accountability. He stuffed it in his pocket and was doing favours.

Tony Clement was on the Conservative front bench. Now, I like Tony. He is a nice guy, but he took $50 million from the border infrastructure fund. Border security is meant to keep us safe, but he passed it out in this bogus little slush fund he set up in Muskoka. How many gazebos were built in Muskoka with money that should have kept the border safe?

We asked for the documents with straightforward questions: “Tony, what did you do with our $50 million? Did you really buy a sunken boat? Did you really buy a fake lake?” What did the Harper Conservatives say? They kept it under cabinet confidence and suppressed this totally bogus slush fund. That is a lack of transparency and accountability.

It is the crocodile principle. We trusted them to come into our home because we thought they were going to look after us. Guess what. Just look at the history. They say “the most corrupt government in history”, and there is a lot: the WE scandal and SNC-Lavalin, I mean, with the Liberals, it is part of their DNA. But my God, Mike Duffy; are they kidding me?

Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau were the three most unfit people ever chosen to sit in the Canadian Senate. They were so unfit that even Caligula's horse would have been a better choice for the Senate. At least Caligula's horse met the standard of being from the place he was supposed to be from, unlike Mike Duffy. Do members remember Mac Harb, another famous scam artist? He bought a cottage 101 kilometres from Ottawa that did not have lights or running water, and then he hit up taxpayers for his travel, even though he never went there because he had a condo in downtown Ottawa.

I mention Mike Duffy because he was a bagman for Stephen Harper. He got appointed to the Senate until he was 75. He was the member for "come from away" in Prince Edward Island. The two most famous fake, fictional people in Prince Edward Island are Anne of Green Gables and Mike Duffy. What happened? He got upset. He had his own hairdresser being paid for by the taxpayers. Nigel Wright had to write a secret $90,000 cheque. Do members remember that? This was Stephen Harper's right-hand man. Nigel Wright was proper, upstanding, a good Christian man, and he had to write a $90,000 cheque. Only in Canada can it be a crime to offer a bribe, but not to accept a bribe, or is it the other way around? Stephen Harper's inner office staff were writing secret cheques. Again, talk about the crocodiles being invited into the house; this is not transparency and accountability.

Now let us get to the man who is the present leader of the Conservative Party. A June 2024 report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee, a redacted document, said foreign interference in the leadership allowed him to take out Erin O'Toole. I would like to see Conservatives come clean with the Canadian people and release the documents. They are not going to release those documents. This is about foreign interference that allowed the guy now living in Stornoway to be leader. Members do not need to take my word for it. Erin O'Toole testified alongside federal lawyers that he believed Chinese interference took him out. I know some members of the Conservative backbench were definitely involved. Maybe they talked to the foreign Chinese government. I do not know. Those documents should be coming forward.

Why is that important? I am not sure the current leader has ever actually had a job. I do not want to say that is not a problem. I personally find it kind of odd that he sort of claims he worked at a Dairy Queen. However, he does not have security clearance. He is the only leader in national history who either cannot or will not get a national security clearance. What the heck is with that? I mention it because the other day, when we were watching the horrific violence in the Middle East, the destabilizing of the situation, the people being bombed and killed, he was out there bragging that he thought it would be such a great thing for Netanyahu to bomb another country. The man is fundamentally unfit, and he is unfit because he does not even have security clearance. He does not even know what he is talking about.

We are trying to de-escalate a global nightmare in the Middle East where thousands of innocent people have been killed: Iranian people, Syrian people, Lebanese people, Israeli people and Palestinian people. At the same time, we have a guy living in a 19-room mansion, Stornoway, with his own personal chef, who cannot get security clearance, and he is talking about bombing another country. I want to know why Conservatives will not release the documents on his leadership. How did that guy get to the position he is in? How is it that he does not have security clearance?

That is a simple question. We should get that answer and we have not got that answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I truly believe the member has raised some valid points, especially with his most recent comments in regard to the leadership of the Conservative Party. We know foreign interference has been a very hot topic. Canadians are truly concerned about it.

However, we have the only party leader in the House of Commons who absolutely refuses to get the security clearance necessary in order to see the documents. It begs the question: Is it that the leader of the Conservative Party wants to be naive about this issue? Or is it because if he actually applied, his application would be rejected on some grounds? Maybe the House of Commons or a standing committee should be investigating that, because Canadians have a right to know if the leader of the Conservative Party might not even qualify to get security clearance and what would prevent that from happening.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your excellent work, and if I have ever crossed any lines, I am so glad that you always keep me on the straight and narrow. I hope that does not come out of my time, though.

The fundamental issue is that when we are elected to serve in Parliament, beyond our parties and beyond our local issues, our fundamental obligation is the betterment of Canada. That is our obligation, all of us, so when there is a leader who does not care about national security and does not want to know or cannot know, that is a serious black mark question.

The leader of the Conservative Party needs to explain why he is so uninterested in that, particularly if he is shooting his mouth off about the violence happening in the Middle East, which has caused so much suffering. He does not even know what the facts are, and either he is refusing to get briefed so he can understand or he cannot. If he cannot get security clearance, that is a serious question.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, when the member ran to become the leader of the NDP, I do not recall any announcement or Tweet saying that he would not take up residence in Stornoway. I also never saw him do that with his previous leader, Thomas Mulcair, who was at one point looking to be prime minister.

Let us dispose of this: The only security clearance a prime minister needs is to become the leader of the party that has the most votes. That is something the member for Carleton, I believe, will do.

The last thing I am going to mention will pop the member's bubble. When Stephen Harper was prime minister and we had the Mike Duffy affair, he said to the RCMP that he was waiving all client-solicitor privileges in regard to access to people, documents and emails in his own office. He did that because he had nothing to hide from them.

Why does the member continually give the Prime Minister an out? He attacks Conservatives rather than asking what is so bad about the green slush fund that the PMO is stonewalling and not letting Parliament see the documents. Why does the member continue to support the Prime Minister, cover for him and point at other parties when the Prime Minister needs to be held accountable?

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

Mr. Speaker, where to start? Why is the member talking about the guy who lives in Stornoway in a 19-room mansion with his own private chef, when he should be talking about why the Conservatives are refusing to respect the Speaker's order so we can investigate this scandal? I would love to talk about what the guy gets at Stornoway all day, but that is not the issue here.

The fact that the member thinks a prime minister of a G7 country does not need a security clearance is kind of worrisome. It is no wonder I have such concerns about the Conservatives on the backbench. In what world do they get elected and think that to be a leader of a G7 country someone does not need to know what is going—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member does raise a very valid point. I think it is worth pursuing.

Canada plays a very important role in world affairs. We know that. There is a need to recognize that all sorts of security issues and confidential information come to the Prime Minister's desk, and the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada is saying he does not want a security clearance.

There has to be a reason for that, and I am wondering if the member would concur that a standing committee of the House should be investigating why we have foreign interference allegations and why the leader of the Conservative Party is rejecting any sense of transparency and accountability to Canadians on this very important issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. colleague will not mind that I go back to my friend from the Conservatives. It is very concerning that the Conservatives think that if they win an election, they do not need to know what is going on in the world. They think that all they need is to win enough votes and they do not need to know what is happening in Iran. They think they can make any kind of bogus statement they want. That is frightening.

I also want to mention Stephen Harper turning things over to the RCMP. There was nowhere left to go when it came out. I was there. I was the one who took down Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright. I was there when Stephen Harper, day after day, stonewalled, but the corruption was in his office. It was his chief of staff writing a cheque. This was not about friends and cronies. This was about the prime minister of this country, the guy who shut down the Afghan detainees and did not care about basic facts. When the RCMP was on him, he had to throw poor Mike Duffy under the bus.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I always find my colleague's interventions both informative and entertaining, but I want to ask a serious question.

My colleague spoke about the Leader of the Opposition, who said that it would be a gift if innocent people lost their lives and a nuclear facility was bombed. This is as we are seeing an escalation of war in the Middle East and seeing tens of thousands of innocent people losing their lives.

Does my colleague have concerns about the Leader of the Opposition having no understanding of international humanitarian law and no understanding of how important it is to de-escalate and play a role in peacekeeping and peacebuilding in this country? Does he have any concerns that the Leader of the Opposition is unfit to be the prime minister of this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with horrific levels of violence against innocent people, and the Conservatives have done nothing to speak up for the innocent people who are dying in Lebanon right now when so many Lebanese Canadians are crying out for help. The Conservative leader is cheering on the bombing of a facility that he did not know existed. If he had had security clearance, he might have had an understanding of whether there was a nuclear facility. However, he does not have that knowledge and does not have the maturity, because this man is fundamentally unfit for office.

A man who calls for the bombing of a foreign country and says that killing innocent people is a gift to humanity is fundamentally unfit to lead anything in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a question but more so a comment.

After being here for almost nine years now, one thing I have seen over those nine years is that there is nothing more alarming, more unstable, more dangerous and more unhinged than a member who has already announced that they are not running again using the parliamentary privileges and immunities of this place to say what they would likely not say outside of these walls. That is my comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, what was that? The leader, who lives in Stornoway, does not have security clearance. Does the member think that is something I would not say outside? He does not have security clearance. Is that the question? What is the question here?

The Conservatives and their sock puppets on the back bench are shutting down Parliament. Would I not say that outside? Of course I would say that. I do not know what the member is so concerned about. The man is unfit for public office. He is unfit if he is talking about—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the debate continues on this issue. It is unfortunate because of all the things we could be debating.

We are debating this issue because of the political games the Conservatives want to play. What they are doing is putting the interests of the Conservative Party, and in particular the interests of the leader of the Conservative Party, ahead of Canadians' interests. That is the bottom line. It is the reason that day after day we have been having this particular debate. It is the reason that concurrence report after concurrence report is being introduced by the Conservative Party.

Even though there is substantial legislation before the House, the Conservative Party has chosen not to act in the best interests of Canadians, but rather to act in the best interests of the Conservative Party. I find this most unfortunate, especially when we take a look at what we are debating, or the privilege itself.

We are not debating the privilege motion, because the Conservatives moved an amendment to the privilege motion. Then dozens and dozens of Conservative members of Parliament stood to talk about the amendment, about half of their caucus. I guess the other half did not want to talk about it or were maybe a little embarrassed to, so they decided that the next step was to move a subamendment, or an amendment to the amendment. This is now before the House.

The root of the problem, and I am not talking about the leader of the Conservative Party, even though many of my colleagues might argue he is the problem, is that, procedurally, on the floor of the House is a motion asking—

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, a relatively low number of people are required for quorum, but I do not believe we have quorum right now.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

We will take a quick count of the individuals in the chamber.

And the count having been taken:

We have quorum.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just moments before the quorum call was—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

There is another point of order, from the hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about checking for quorum. For members to be counted for quorum, should they not be in their seats? Can they be seated wherever they like in the House?

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

That is an excellent question. I will discuss it with the table clerks.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question that ties in with the question my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères asked. When checking for quorum, should the count not be based on the number of people who are present in the House at the time the question is asked?

I find it a bit odd to see people rushing into the House of Commons when they hear a quorum call, when quorum refers to the people who are present at the time of debate. I find that a bit odd and I would like you to clarify this, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I will clarify these two points in a few minutes. From what I understand, we want to know whether members in the lobby who enter the House when the question is being asked should be counted during the quorum call.

As for the seats, that is another issue. The other thing we count is the number of people whose camera is activated on Zoom. If the camera is activated, we can count the member. If not, we cannot count them.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to confirm that none of this time that has been used will actually be taken away from my speaking time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Your clock is stopped and is ready to be started again when you are ready.

I am counting enough people for quorum in here, so I will allow the hon. member to begin. Maybe at the changeover, I will come back to the chamber on whether the individuals have to be at their seats. I will accept that they are not in their seats at this moment, but I will come back in a minute.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.