Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. Again, I am happy to make a list of members who want to ask questions when that time comes. We are only eight minutes into this discussion. The hon. member has 12 minutes to go. Are we going to let him continue? I am making sure he can catch his breath.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the last one I mentioned was the election scandal, but there should be an “s” on “scandal” because there was more than one. Remember that one Conservative member of Parliament actually went to jail as a result. That is not to mention the robocalls and the fines the Conservative Party had.

There is something that all of them have in common, and that is what I want to try to rope together. Trust me, there is a lot more than what I just said. Let us think about this. There are all the different scandals, but where were the Conservatives and some of the enthusiastic members jumping out of their seats wanting to address this issue when it came to collecting information and handing it directly to the RCMP. Where were the Conservatives' accountability issues back then? I would suggest—

[Larry Brock]

There was no criminality.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, he says there was no criminality. I just finished telling the member opposite that one of the Conservative MPs went to jail. He would not have gone to jail if he were innocent. That was a Conservative scandal. How can the member say there is no criminality? I shake my head sometimes.

At the end of the day, we need to understand and appreciate that the Conservatives, while in government, did not believe in accountability when it came to scandals because they constantly buried them. Not only Liberal members will say that; other members will say the same thing.

Now there is an issue before us today that the Government of Canada has taken seriously right from the get-go, even before the Conservatives were aware of it. To give the false impression that it is only the Conservatives who are concerned about ensuring there is justice on the issue is a false narrative; it is just not true. On more than one occasion, more than one minister has stood to defend the taxpayer on the issue, saying they will ensure that there will be a consequence for whoever violates and abuses tax dollars. I would like to think that is a given.

When the Prime Minister today talks about accountability and transparency, Canadians can feel confident in knowing that the government is not trying to avoid accountability whatsoever. The Liberal Party does believe in the the Charter of Rights and in our Constitution. In fact it was the Liberal Party that brought the charter into being. That is the reality of it.

It is truly amazing that today the leader of the Conservative Party and other members, including the previous speaker, said we could be doing something other than debating the issue. Of course we could be doing something else, but who has been doing all of the debating? For the last couple of days, the Conservatives have continued to debate the issue. What happens if the Conservatives stop debating it? It means there will be a vote. What will happen when the vote occurs? The issue is likely going to go to the procedure and House affairs committee, where there will be a great deal of discussion on the issue, and where witnesses will appear. That is not really what the Conservatives want.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Call an election.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, they want what the member just heckled, and that is to call an election. That is the only thing on the minds of the Conservatives today, not the concerns and issues that Canadians have in the communities we represent, but rather, one focus, and one focus alone. All they want to do is talk about scandal, corruption and character assassination. That is their objective between now and whenever the next election takes place.

At the end of the day, if the Conservatives really and truly want to put Canadians ahead of their own political ambitions, we would see this go to committee, but they do not want that. They moved an amendment so that not only can every member speak to it once but they can also do it a second time.

This is because the Conservatives want to prevent the House from being able to debate government legislation, which is interesting. They are preventing legislation from being debated, and then say that the House is not functional. Well, gee whiz, that is like standing on a sidewalk, tripping a child who then falls on the sidewalk and then asking, “What are you doing lying on the sidewalk?” Well, the Conservatives have tripped legislation on the sidewalk. It just does not make any sense. If the Conservatives want to work for Canadians, then they should do that. Do not believe that, at the end of the day, everything they are doing is in the best interests of Canadians when, in fact, it is not. It might be in the best interests of the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative Party itself, but they should not try to give false impressions in regards to the interests of Canadians.

SDTC is an institution that has been here for more than 20 years. It has done a fantastic job over the years at ensuring that technology in Canada continues to evolve to the degree where, I would suggest, we do not have to be second to any other country. It is because of individuals, like former prime minister Jean Chrétien, who brought this program into existence, and it has made a difference. It has had a very tangible and real impact.

Unfortunately, at times, issues come up, which is not new to this government or any other government before it, where there appears to be significant abuse. The question is, what does the government do when it sees it? I would suggest to compare our actions to Stephen Harper's actions, and members will see that we have been forthright in providing information to members and in being there for committee members.

However, to ask Liberal members of Parliament to ignore the comments of the RCMP and the Auditor General in terms of the risk factor by bringing in this particular tactic, well, I think we should be concerned. If the Conservatives are genuinely interested in ensuring that there is more accountability on this issue, well then, why not allow it to go to committee? What is the purpose in preventing this from going to committee?

At the end of the day, as I indicated, Conservatives have a strong focus on character assassination. One Conservative member stood up in the debate and effectively said, “Well, you know, corruption takes place in a different sense”. We often hear Conservative members, in addressing this issue, talk about other issues, and one of those is in regards to Mark Carney, and we hear what they say about that particular individual.

I raised a question on a different issue of a conflict of interest, much like what the Conservative member yesterday said when he made reference to corruption in a different sense. I responded to that particular statement by talking about a young lady, Jenni Byrne, who is a lobbyist and does work with Loblaws. She played a critical role in Stephen Harper's elections. I believe she was the co-chair or manager of the current Conservative leader's leadership bid, and I know that she is deeply involved in the Conservative caucus.

I am thinking that, if I were to behave like a Conservative and started putting dots here and dots there, and then pulled them all together, I might think there was something corrupt about this, something that maybe we should be investigating. I am wondering if some of my like-minded colleagues on the other side would see that there could be some value in this. After all, it was Stephen Harper who ultimately saw Loblaw and Shoppers melt into one, and the Conservatives are concerned about affordability. The reduction of competition no doubt had something to do with that.

Better yet, in my member's statement today, I talked about allegations of foreign interference. The leader of the Conservative Party should be aware that there are serious allegations that the leadership he won was impacted by foreign interference. Again, let us look at these dots, which the Conservatives like. There might be something there. I think we better pursue the issue of why the leader of the Conservative Party does not get security clearance. I started thinking that maybe it is because he would not get approved if he applied, which would then beg the question of why he would not be approved and if there is something we do not know about.

I am sure members can appreciate and understand the point I am getting at, which is that the Conservatives are—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

On a point of order, the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has had one more security clearance than that member.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

That is debate.

The time is up, so let us go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Brantford—Brant has the floor.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I note that my colleague from across the floor took it upon himself to identify me in his debate. I took great homage with that, but I want to refresh his memory because those who live in glass houses ought to be very careful about throwing stones.

My colleague talked about and smeared the entire Conservative bench for the fact that a previous member was found guilty of violating the Elections Act. Perhaps I should remind the member, who is a very experienced member of the Liberal Party, that his former colleague, Marwan Tabbara, pleaded guilty to two counts of domestic assault and unlawfully entering a dwelling house. He received a criminal record and was placed on probation.

I am wondering if the member forgot about that. Perhaps I can now smear the entire Liberal Party of Canada as a result of that. Also, one of his current colleagues, the member for Calgary Skyview was found guilty for violating the Elections Act. Perhaps the member needs to have his memory refreshed.

Are you trying to bury those deep, dark secrets as well about your party?

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I remind the hon. member to address questions through the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by the comment made by the member's seatmate when he said that the leader of the Conservative Party had a higher security clearance than me. That is a very good question. I would like to be able to show my security credentials to the House, and I would be prepared to table that, as long as it can be acquired. I do not have a problem with that.

I am wondering if the leader of the Conservative Party would. If it would make the leader of the Conservative Party happy, and he gets that security clearance and wants me to get the very same one, I am in for it. I, too, will get that security clearance.

However, I really do think, and members can stop to think about this for a moment, that the leader of the Conservative Party might not want to get the security clearance because of his past. I think we should maybe look into his past and find out whether it would be approved and that is the only reason he does not want to apply—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order, please.

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was very explicit in his speech. However, the government is responsible for its actions. The government is refusing to produce all the documents ordered by the House on June 10. This truly demonstrates a flagrant lack of ethics and is leading members to raise questions of privilege, which are currently taking priority.

The Conservatives are monopolizing the debate. We, as legislators, are caught up in this tactic.

What is the government hiding in its refusal to hand over the SDTC documents?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, there was a genuine attempt to provide the documents that have been requested.

My understanding is the official opposition, in particular, has real issues in regard to areas where the documents have been redacted. It does not feel it got all the information required, because they want to help or “assist the RCMP”, even though it is not asking for that assistance, in making sure it gets more information.

I would suggest that we have more faith in the institutions than we have currently witnessed, whether it is the standing committee, the internal investigations, the department or the Auditor General of Canada. It is having confidence in that system, as opposed to trying to vote in favour of a motion that ultimately could be in violation of the Charter of Rights, which is something we would not know until it ultimately gets to the court process where a potential defence witness could say that his or her charter rights have been violated.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to this debate for quite some time.

Many times, members have expressed that Parliament is supreme, but according to the Canadian constitutional system of government, the executive, the legislative and the judiciary all have their own powers and responsibilities.

If Parliament is so supreme, can we go directly into the operational matters related to the executive or the judiciary? For example, can Parliament ask a judge to pass a particular sentence which this august House decides, even if it decides unanimously?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question and that is why I made reference to the slippery slope.

At the end of the day, the leadership within the Conservative Party is taking a position that ultimately says to disregard the concerns that the RCMP and the Auditor General of Canada have, and that it is more important to tie this issue to a scandal and somehow connect it to the Liberal Party, in particular, the Prime Minister.

That is what they are more concerned about, not the Charter of Rights. It just has not dawned on the Conservatives. They just do not understand. Individuals should be concerned, especially when Conservatives, provinces and others are so willing to use things like the notwithstanding clause within the Constitution.

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

Madam Speaker, sometimes we just happen to agree. I agree with some of the things the member said, including the fact that our role as parliamentarians is to study bills and try to find a consensus or to scrap that bill.

Since the beginning of the debate, I notice that on one side, the main opposition party, the Conservative Party, is saying that the Liberals are corrupt. On the other side, the Liberals are saying that the Conservatives are corrupt.

I see a problem and I wonder whether the problem is that power makes some people forget that that same power essentially comes from public trust. I am not talking about everybody. I said, “some people”.

Is the problem that Canada's bicameral system gives the impression that there is no need to seek consensus, that it is okay to just keep arguing all day instead of thinking of the common good?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, for me personally, my voice, my power as a member of Parliament, is rooted in the constituents I represent. It has always been and will always be this way. The issue, in terms of the stalemate that we are starting to see, has been caused by the Conservative Party's decision to prevent legislation from being debated. If the Conservatives stopped talking, this issue, for example, would go to a standing committee and be thoroughly discussed and debated, with witnesses and everything.

However, they realize that, if they allowed that to occur, then the government would be able to bring in legislation. They would have to come up with some other way to filibuster. There should be no doubt that the Conservatives' only concern is about the next election and getting it as soon as possible. Unlike the other two opposition parties, the Bloc and the New Democrats, they are more concerned about their political party than they are about Canadians. The Bloc, the New Democrats and, I would suggest, the Liberals are more concerned about continuing to do the job that we were elected to do, which is to serve Canadians. The way we do that is by having debates on legislation, voting on legislation and so forth.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. government representative has raised a question a couple of times that also troubles me. The hon. leader of the official opposition has said that he does not want top secret security clearance, because he is afraid it will gag him.

Fortunately, thanks to David Johnston, this was made available to me, as leader of the Green Party, for the first time ever. If it were not for David Johnston's decision, I could not have asked for top secret security clearance. I did that process. It is long and onerous, and they really want to make sure one is not compromised. It is certainly not the case that I was gagged because I obtained it. I am very troubled with regard to the leader of the official opposition, with all due respect to my colleagues across the way.

I cannot speak to them directly, but I wish that the Conservative Party members would encourage their leader not to embrace ignorance as a virtue. It is much better to have top secret security clearance and clear the air so that Canadians know we are not compromised.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question because it is noteworthy that all leaders, except for the Conservative leader, have actually gotten the top security clearance. It is a legitimate question to ask on behalf of Canadians, as to why the leader of the Conservative Party will not agree to get the top—

Message from the Senate

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

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-235, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.