Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I have no idea when these Liberals are actually going to get into 2024. We will all keep waiting, because they keep talking about 15 years ago. The majority of Conservatives on this side have been elected since 2015, so I guess the member can keep yelling about whatever he is talking about over there.

In terms of the names he mentioned, of the MPs involved in foreign interference, Conservatives have put forward a motion to call upon the Prime Minister to release the names of the members of Parliament who have knowingly or wittingly collaborated with foreign interference. We understand there are 11 MPs. Here are some solutions for the government: Release those names, and release these slush fund documents so we can all get on with our jobs here.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, it would be funny if it were not so sad. I would like to talk about something that my colleague said in her speech.

She said that the government has failed to keep one of its many promises on the environment, and that is to plant two billion trees. That was a key election promise, but the Liberals have planted maybe 2% or 3% of that amount. She also said that, in the meantime, the government has neglected the oil industry or subjected it to uncertainty.

How can she say such a thing in the House?

According to a study by the International Monetary Fund, in 2022, Canada directly and indirectly invested $50 billion in the oil industry. If the Liberal government has failed on environmental issues over the past nine years, then I can say that people in my riding, particularly those who are concerned about the fight against climate change, are absolutely terrified, and I am choosing my words carefully here, at the idea of the Conservatives taking power.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I completely, 100% agree with the member's comment that the government made a promise with regard to tree planting that it is completely failing to meet. It might be an interesting point of fact that of all the private sectors in the Canadian economy, the sector that plants the most trees without government funding or initiatives is the oil and gas sector, right across Canada. People who live and work around this development would be aware of many of these things.

This goes to the government's whole problem on these environmental issues. It is the same thing with its justification of a carbon tax, which is a tax plan, not an environmental plan. The truth is that Liberals do not even measure emissions reductions. They are not even able to do that.

My question for the Bloc is this: If the Bloc is actually going to function as an opposition party, why would the member be standing up in this debate talking about these issues instead of about the motion that is on the floor of the House of Commons, which is demanding the Liberals release the documents or call a carbon tax election?

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

Madam Speaker, we condemn Liberal scandals. That is why we are supporting the motion. We want to get the information that is so vital for SDTC. As we know, in the WE Charity scandal and the SNC-Lavalin scandal, NDP MPs played a key role in getting to the bottom of those. We condemn those scandals but we also condemn the incredible corruption of the Harper years. The Conservatives, when they were in power, when we look at the size and scope of their scandals, were even worse than the Liberals.

Just to mention a few, there was the ETS scandal, worth $400 million; the G8 scandal, $1 billion; the Phoenix pay scandal, $2.2 billion; and the anti-terrorism funding scandal, $3.1 billion. These were massive amounts, unacceptable uses of taxpayers' money and never condemned by Conservatives, ever. In fact, they covered them up during their majority government and refused to have parliamentarians look into each of these various scandals.

Another one has broken today in Saskatchewan, with the conservative Saskatchewan Party. Gary Grewal stole three-quarters of a million dollars and was rendered guilty by the Saskatchewan ethics commissioner. I have been asking Conservative MPs simply to stand up and condemn that theft. Will the member stand up and condemn the theft of three-quarters of a million dollars by a conservative Saskatchewan Party MLA in Saskatchewan?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, once again, these progressives are just so regressive and stuck in their angry past, are they not? If the member actually wants to be an opposition party member, and do more than just wax on and on about how he is concerned about all these issues or corruptions or scandals or the things they advocate on every single day, why on earth do the New Democrats keep voting with the Liberals over and over to prop them up and keep them in power? That is the real question here, is it not?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe we are now on day 11 of the debate on this motion, which could be moved to committee and voted on. The only thing holding that up is more Conservative speakers.

The last time I spoke to the motion, I shared how much money we are spending by having one speaker talk after another. I have an update on those numbers if anyone is curious. As of yesterday, we have had 66 Conservative members speak to the motion. If we only account for the cost of operating the House of Commons for just those 66 members, which is 33 hours of speeches, it is over $2.3 million. As of yesterday, there is the opportunity for 53 more Conservatives to continue wasting money to speak to the motion.

How much more money do the Conservatives want to spend continuing to speak about the same motion? We could vote on it right now if they just stopped speaking.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives want to see the documents, and they want the $400 million that the Liberals wasted in their insider circle-jerk slush fund scheme. What the member is actually saying is that he is perfectly fine with this corruption. He is perfectly fine with this scandal and wants to raise all these other issues instead of focusing on the topic at hand.

In his answer, the member is very clear that he is perfectly fine with this corruption scandal and is not going to do anything about it. People deserve better representation than that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, speaking of corruption, I am wondering if the member can indicate why the Conservative leader continues to refuse to get security clearance? She made reference to 11 MPs. All the leader needs to do is exactly what the leader of the New Democratic Party, the leader of the Bloc, the leader of the Green Party and the Prime Minister have done: They have clearance.

Others are suggesting that the Conservative leader needs to get clearance. Why not?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Liberals have complete control over this. They can release the names.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I was very interested in my colleague's speech, particularly the fact that the Auditor General has only sampled about half of the transactions and found that 82% were conflicted by corrupt Liberals. How bad could the 10,000 pages the government has redacted be that it is hiding them? How much more corruption is there beyond the $400 million?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for all of his work and all of the other Conservatives who have done yeoman's work on this issue to fight for transparency for Canadians.

That is the scary question. It is shown in the lengths that the Liberals are willing to go to hide, exactly as he said, 10,000 pages of covered-up, blacked-out information. It is apparently the most important information for finding out where Canadians' money has gone. However, this is their pattern. The Liberals are going to Liberal; they will corrupt then cover up. That is what they do. Once again, I thank common-sense Conservatives.

We can see all the tyrant tendencies of people who do not want MPs to speak on behalf of their people. The Conservatives will keep doing this, and the Liberals should release the documents.

Access to Parliament Hill

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

Madam Speaker, I am rising to provide my response to the question of privilege that was raised by the Conservative deputy leader the week before last, which was before the constituency break.

As the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said, while members of Parliament have a fundamental right to access the parliamentary precinct free of obstruction, that freedom does not extend to members of the public who are looking to confront, be aggressive to or bully other people on Parliament Hill. It is for that reason that peaceful gatherings on the Hill need prior approval to take place. When those gatherings are political protests, approval is needed in the event that there is a counterprotest. We have seen this multiple times. It makes good sense if the goal is to balance peaceful expression of views, prevention of incidents and a de-escalation of conflict. Of course, if one's goal is not de-escalation, it makes sense that they would not like this, which brings me to the specific incident in question.

I have reviewed the member's intervention. At no point in time does she even try to show how her privilege or access to the Hill was compromised. It simply was not. That alone would be grounds to dismiss her case.

I have also reviewed the clip that she posted to social media of the incident. It seems to me that the video shows an individual approaching an authorized gathering on Parliament Hill with the express purpose of disrupting it, all while being filmed, in an attempt to provoke a reaction from the hard-working, dedicated PPS agent on the scene.

The video in question is watermarked with the extremist tag “Dacey Media”, the exact same watermark that appears on videos of attempts to provoke the NDP leader on Parliament Hill a few weeks ago. The individual who was retweeted by the deputy leader of the Conservatives in that same thread, which was of course promoted and retweeted by her, also states extremist rhetoric of hate, such as, “We’re like 2 centimetres away from an Islamic regime here”. That was from the same extremist who has Americans messaging her about coming to liberate Canada. It is unfortunate, but not a surprise, to see Conservatives promoting racist, far-right accounts.

This comes nowhere near passing the bar that is required for this matter to be considered a question of privilege. I will say that a far more legitimate—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

I must interrupt the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, who is responding to a question of privilege. I will not have interruptions to that. The hon. member can react afterward.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, this is a response to a question of privilege. It is very unusual to see that reaction.

I will say that a far more legitimate question of privilege could have been raised with regard to the actions of Conservative Party members in Parliament in support of extremists a few years ago during the far-right trucker convoy. Members will recall that this convoy shut down downtown Ottawa for weeks, which of course had the direct impact of restricting access to Parliament Hill. Downtown residents were continually harassed. Seniors were denied medication. People with disabilities were denied groceries. Businesses were forced to shut down. Members of Parliament had to walk a gauntlet of far-right extremist hate in order to represent their constituents by coming to this chamber. Far from raising concerns about privilege then, the Conservative Party leader served the truckers coffee and doughnuts, calling it a “freedom convoy”, though tens of thousands of Ottawa residents had their freedoms denied as a result of this takeover of downtown Ottawa.

I would mention as well that, since this time, we have seen a number of incidents that are disturbing in their flirtation with the far right. The leader of the official opposition has used the male supremacist “men going their own way” hashtag to attract far-right misogynistic viewers. He accepted an endorsement from far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones; has visited protesters affiliated with Diagolon, a militia-like extremist organization; and refused to punish backbenchers who met with members of the extremist AfD party, a party known for Islamophobic and anti-immigrant views.

I could—

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

This is not relevant.

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

I must interrupt the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

When someone is replying to a question of privilege, there is no limitation to what that person can say. There is no limitation on relevance.

The hon. member for New Westminister—Burnaby has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, I am just wrapping up. I could go on, but I will leave it at that.

The official opposition deputy leader's matter of privilege is without any merit whatsoever, period.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member, while he was speaking, spoke about racism. Will he denounce the tweet from the member for Timmins—James Bay that was clearly anti-Semitic?

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

That is a matter of debate. I do not think we will proceed with that right now.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, as the Chair indicated, there is no limit on the relevance or the scope of a member raising a question of privilege. I would like to bring to the Chair's attention the matter that the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo raised with respect to the environment that has been created by the anti-Semitism that has been espoused by the member for Timmins—James Bay.

In this place, we have members who come from all different faith backgrounds and represent Canadians who come from all those faith backgrounds. It is incredibly concerning that we have an environment that has been created that could be considered by members in this House as hostile to them based on their religious beliefs.

For myself, as a proud Zionist, I am very concerned about this type of anti-Semitism—

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

This is turning into a debate. We heard what the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby had to say. It will be taken into consideration by the Chair. If the hon. member has another question of privilege to bring, it is up to him to bring that question of privilege.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the use of insults by the Conservative Party was directed to you, Madam Speaker, in a Speaker's ruling earlier today. The Speaker is coming back to this House, because of the spewing of insults from the Conservative Party. I would suggest that those insults be shut down.

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

I absolutely agree that those insults should be shut down by everyone, from every side.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes can conclude in about 10 seconds.

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

Madam Speaker, you previously indicated that there is no limit on the scope of that. Your previous ruling was that a member not be interrupted during their question of privilege.

That same courtesy was not extended to me while expressing my concern about the anti-Semitism espoused by the member for Timmins—James Bay and, of course, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, looking for a House officer from the NDP to condemn that anti-Semitism, which he of course refused and failed to do.