Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in the issue of what parties are hiding. It should be fundamental that we put the nation above the interests of the party, but we see that the Conservative leader refuses to get security clearance.

I want to ask the member about CSIS's October 2022 intelligence assessment that Sam Cooper, a journalist, reported on. He said, “Government of India agents appear to have interfered in the Conservatives' 2022 leadership race by purchasing memberships for one candidate while undermining another, and also boasted of funding ‘a number of politicians at all levels of government’.” We know who was the recipient of that largesse: the man who is living in Stornoway. I would like to ask whether the member is willing to stand up and name the politicians who have been paid off by the Government of India?

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

Mr. Speaker, let us review some facts. Tom Mulcair, the previous leader of the NDP and the previous leader of the official opposition, stated that on this issue our leader is completely correct. Obtaining security clearance at this time would do nothing but hamstring our leader's ability to act on information provided.

However, the Prime Minister can act. He can release the names but refuses to do so. What is he hiding? It is rich for the Prime Minister to grandstand, given that the record has shown that he and his government, with all the benefits of the government agencies, were repeatedly warned about foreign interference, including in the Liberal Party, and refused to act. If the NDP needs a statement for this question, maybe the NDP MPs should take a lesson from their previous leader and learn what the proper procedures are.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are at a time where we have seen them use chatbot and AI. Would she tell us who wrote that? Was it someone from the party or is that—

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member is an experienced member of the House. I suspect he knows that is not a point of order.

The hon. member from Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with most of what my friend from King—Vaughan said. The facts of the SDTC case, the fact that a previously well run institution providing funding for emerging technologies went so far off the rails is deeply concerning, so I do not want my question to seem to be trivializing it.

We have an Auditor General report and, at the request of the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, we have a full report from the Commissioner of Ethics, so we have a lot of information.

With all due respect to my friend from King—Vaughan, she said two things that I do not think are in any way evidence. I do not think they are true, but I would like to know if she thinks they are true.

The first is that Annette Verschuren, who was appointed chair of SDTC and committed a number of grievous errors with respect to the failure to observe conflict of interest rules, was a friend of the Prime Minister. I do not think we even know if she was a supporter for the Liberal Party. The second is that the hon. member for King—Vaughan has said that this institution continues to defraud, but it has been wrapped up and put into a different institution.

I would like to ask her if there is information in support of those two allegations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know one thing. In speaking to my constituents from King—Vaughan, they are disgusted and disappointed in the current affairs of the Liberal government. It is like if we see one cockroach, there are hundreds behind the wall.

How many more hidden secrets is the government going to keep from Canadians in allowing them to know the truth on how their valuable, hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being squandered by the government?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague worked in an industry where transparency and trust was important when dealing with other people's money. I think she would probably relate to the idea of why trust is very important when we are dealing with other people's money.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do have a lot of experience in banking. In banking, our clients expect us to be honest, transparent and accountable. If we are not, they will move their business. The ironic part about it is that not only are we transparent and accountable in that industry, we also have auditors that we have to report to, just like the government. It had the Attorney General. It knows that it has 186 violations with $400 million of money that we cannot possibly ever know about unless it reveals those reports.

How can we, as politicians, stand in this place and explain to the Canadian public where this money was squandered by the Liberals?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, your ruling was that this issue go before a standing committee. It had nothing to do with the member's misrepresentation of what she says the Speaker's ruling was. The reason why we are here is because of unethical behaviour coming from Conservative members that want to filibuster a Canadian agenda versus a Conservative Party agenda.

When will the Conservatives start to put Canadians ahead of their own political agenda?

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

Mr. Speaker, we know the Liberals have to deflect because we know that they are down 20 points in the polls. We know that they are going to try to blame everyone else but themselves, because they know that in the next election they will be decimated.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when members of Parliament go back to their ridings on the weekend or during their constituency weeks and when they go to community events, or to their local arena, or to the local community centre or legion, wherever they go, I am sure they get the same comments that I get, no matter what political party. Sometimes we are a little amazed at what people want to talk about. If we are at an arena, seldom do they want to talk about hockey. What do they want to talk about? They want to talk about corruption. They ask me who is going to jail.

I was at an arena on Saturday and an elderly couple asked me who would go to jail for all of this. They wanted to know what was happening. I think this is at the core of what really upsets the Canadian public, certainly it is in my area.

I think back to years ago, when I worked for a foundry, and how hard the workers worked, grinding castings, pressing castings, working hours in the hot summer days inside the furnace room, slagging furnaces. Workers were working in eight-hour shifts and then working four hours overtime afterward. I can remember sitting at the lunch table in the cafeteria. As they were looking at their paycheques, they were talking about their overtime and how much they had left. Sometime these individuals would go into work at 3 a.m. to work a four-hour overtime shift from 3 a.m. to 7 a.m. Then they would work their regular shifts from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. The same thing happened for afternoon shifts. When they looked at their paycheques, they had about 52% left over of what they should have made in overtime.

These people are working hard every day. They then read in the newspaper or on the Internet, or they see it on the TV at night, while watching the news with their family, about this waste, the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars that, after nine years, have accumulated well into the billions. When they see this, they want to know what is going on. This is not what they want. Nor is it the Canada they were hoping to have. This is when the frustration boils over.

I think back to the 2015 election. In a few debates in which I participated, I said that the same people who ran the government in Ontario, Gerald Butts, Katie Telford, and we all know the names, who picked the pockets of the Ontario taxpayers for years, scandal-ridden abuses, were coming to Ottawa to pick the pockets of the Canadian taxpayer now. That is right out of a debate. I am not taking credit for my foresight, but those are the facts.

Why is the culture of that party, the Liberal Party, like this? I know that not all the members are like that, but why is there a culture behind the scenes and in senior leadership? Some of the big hitters cancelled gas plants. That was a billion-dollar debacle. People went to jail for that and ended up being the contributing factor as to why we are so tight on electricity in the province of Ontario.

A lot of people have forgotten the 600 school closures in Ontario during the Wynne-McGuinty years. In my area, I remember going to the reviews, and people were very upset. As it turns out, if they did not close the schools, those schools would be almost full today because of the population growth. I would consider that a big waste. Kids who used to walk to school are now taking buses. There is nothing wrong with a bus, but if they could walk or ride their bikes to school, they would be a lot better off.

Let us talk about the doubling of the debt. In those years, the world's economy was pretty good, and the Liberals ran a deficit the entire time. There are higher taxes and fees, like the hiking of the aviation fuel tax, the beer and wine taxes, sin taxes. It sounds familiar. They did that first in Ontario and then they brought it to Ottawa. There are new taxes on small businesses—

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What is the relevance of this to the amendment we are debating right now?

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for Huron—Bruce is within the guidelines that the Speaker would find acceptable for this debate.

The hon. member for Huron—Bruce.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's and my offices are beside each other, so we can talk about this later, if there are any ongoing questions.

The taxes are hiking up the cost of a driver's licence, fishing licence, hunting licence, camping licence, liquor licence, event permit, court application, and the list goes on. The government is not able to manage its own internal interactions, affairs and cost overruns, including red tape. This all happened in Ontario. Now, in Ottawa, after nine years, it is fully embedded.

The government spent $8 billion on e-health. If we ask anybody in Ontario where they would go to locate their e-health record, I do not think there are many citizens who would know where their e-health record is located. The government also spent $2 billion on smart metres. A lot of people in our ridings would remember that. It was then $304 million over budget on the Pan Am Games and there were $400 million in Presto card cost overruns. It goes on and on.

I will move on to another topic and go back years ago to when an employee who worked in finance where I worked maybe had her hand in the cookie jar. That is pretty much what happened. After an internal investigation, the company discovered that she had misappropriated over $400,000. That was 15 years ago, so it would probably be $3 million in today's dollars, with inflation. The staff of the company did the investigation, I am sure with the assistance of auditors, and turned the documents over to the OPP. The OPP then used those documents to do its investigation. The individual was charged with fraud over $5,000 and was sentenced to an 18-month conditional sentence. Restitution was made, and all the money was recovered.

If we look at that small example and ask ourselves what the difference here is, there really is no difference. The government across the way has the ability to produce these documents unredacted and turn them over to the RCMP to let it make a determination. However, it is awfully difficult to do it a page at a time and while having to wait because of delays to receive the documents. It would be much easier and more appropriate to turn all of the documents over and have the RCMP make its evaluation.

The member for King—Vaughan made points in her speech about some of the scandals that have plagued the government for nine plus years now. The members of Parliament who ran in the 2015 election will remember that time. I am sure my Liberal colleagues across the way remember that time. They were very excited about the promises that were made and the hope that was offered in that 2015 election, after which a significant majority government was formed. I am sure those members of Parliament would never have believed in their wildest dreams that this is where we would be today. We have pages of scandals, issues and problems, and there is money that will never be found or repaid. It can all be laid at the hands of the Prime Minister, his chief of staff, the cabinet ministers who are here, and those who have left, and who are likely collecting seven-figure salaries now.

I think SNC-Lavalin would have to be one of the most egregious cases in the history of Canada with respect to abuse of power. What is most remarkable is this: There was a significant number of key players in that scandal who are still employed, still holding an elected office. It is hard to believe that there has been no housecleaning.

I thought to myself, “What would Jody Wilson-Raybould have to say if she had been re-elected as an independent member of Parliament in the last election? What would she want to say in this speech?” It would likely be the most impactful speech about what it is like to be a minister with a thumb on them the whole time, and to play fast and loose with the law to achieve the goals of the Prime Minister and the corporations.

Another one that was shocking, and it was uncovered during COVID times, was the WE Charity scandal. People could not believe it. I know Bill Morneau took the hit for that one to protect the Prime Minister for another day. There is also the Trudeau Foundation. I do not think we will ever know all the truth about what is going on and what has gone on at the Trudeau Foundation. Hopefully, some day, we will.

On foreign interference, again, people at home are in disbelief.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the member for Timmins—James Bay chirping away, just like he always does. I do not know if members have ever driven down a country road and saw a dog running along the farm, barking at every car that goes by. That is really what he is like now, at the end of his political career. He is really just like that country dog—

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member is an experienced member of the House and knows that it is important to not compare hon. colleagues to animals. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw that and continue along.

I see the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue of foreign interference is very serious, yet when we ask questions, we are being called dogs in the House. They were calling people cockroaches before.

Mr. Speaker, you need to establish a standard of behaviour. The Conservatives cannot just denigrate politicians who are serious about issues of foreign interference by calling them—

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I have asked the hon. member to not compare members to animals and to withdraw those comments. I will give the hon. member a chance to do that.

It is worth making this point: I did notice the line about cockroaches and, in discussion with others, we found it to be very clear that it was not made in reference to other hon. members. It was made in reference to how, if we see one mistruth, we would see many mistruths. That was the comparison. It was not made in comparison to people or members of the House. Certainly, this is how the Chair has interpreted it, and I think that would be a reasonable interpretation.

I am going to ask the hon. member for Huron—Bruce to withdraw the comment and to continue with his speech.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you are right. I was not comparing him to a beautiful Labrador or anything like that. What I was trying—

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

While I entertain a point of order, I would ask the hon. member to please consider simply withdrawing the comment.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, they are talking about taxpayer dollars.

This filibuster has cost $15 million so far, and in the midst of it, we have to put up with the most degrading name-calling in the House, day in and day out. The Conservatives are denigrating other elected officials with their unacceptable behaviour. This is worse than a frat house with a bunch of frat boys in it. If they are going to cost taxpayers $1 million a day, at least they could be a little bit more respectful to all the people across Canada, who they are slapping in the face, while stopping legislation from getting through.

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I will return to the original point and just ask the hon. member for Huron—Bruce to simply withdraw the comment.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did withdraw the comment about three points of order ago.

The point is, with the member for Timmins—James Bay—

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am only asking for fairness. When you asked the member to withdraw, he decided to use it as a platform to continue personal, denigrating attacks.

The member either withdraws and apologizes or he sits down. If we are going to go into what a dog is, whether it is a good dog or a bad dog, and why someone is like a dog, we could do that all day.

Mr. Speaker, you need to establish fair rules for—