Debates of Oct. 8th, 2024

Venezuela

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

Madam Speaker, the next petition deals with human rights issues in Venezuela. I will note that the petition was prepared and certified prior to some of the latest events, so it deals with the issue of political prisoners and does not mention the outcome of the last election. No doubt, petitioners would like to see the Government of Canada recognize the real results of that election, the opposition victory, and join our allies in doing so and maximizing pressure on the government of Venezuela to recognize those results as well.

The particular asks of this petition are for Canada to advocate for the release of political prisoners with close ties to Canada, particularly Ígbert José Marín Chaparro and Oswaldo Valentín García Palomo; to make calling for their release central in any discussions with the Venezuelan government; and to request the release and, further, the return to Canada, of these two individuals due to their strong family ties, before any concessions are given to Venezuela, such as any sanctions release and the reopening of mutual embassies or economic agreements.

International Development

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

Madam Speaker, the next petition I am tabling relates to the Liberal government's feminist international assistance policy. The petitioners highlight the Auditor General's report, which shows that the Liberal approach to international development for women and girls has been criticized by the Auditor General for failing to measure results.

The petitioners further note that this policy has shown a lack of respect for cultural values and autonomy of women in the developing world by supporting organizations that violate local laws and push western priorities at the expense of local development priorities, such as clean water, access to basic nutrition and economic development. The petitioners further argue that the Muskoka initiative launched by the previous Conservative government involved historic investments in the well-being of women and girls around the world, emphasizing value for money and ensuring that investments were in priorities identified by local communities.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to align international development spending with the approach taken in the Muskoka initiative, focusing international development dollars on meeting the basic needs of vulnerable women around the world, rather than pushing ideological agendas that conflict with local values in developing countries. They also want to see an approach that actually constructively measures outcomes.

Women's Shelters

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

Madam Speaker, next, I am tabling a petition regarding cuts the government has made to women's shelters. Women's shelters are sadly seeing an increase in demand.

The petitioners note that the high cost of living and the housing crisis have made it harder for women and children fleeing a violent home to find a safe place to live. Further, the petitioners say that, at a time when the government is dramatically increasing spending on bureaucracy and consultants, it is cutting millions of dollars from women's shelters.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to restore the funding to women's shelters that was cut.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to let the hon. member know that one of his colleagues is trying to table a petition as well. I do not know how many more petitions the hon. member has, but there are only two minutes left.

Charitable Organizations

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

Madam Speaker, I do have many more, but I will limit myself to one additional petition.

This petition, which I am tabling today, raises concern about the politicization of charitable status determinations by the government. In particular, the petitioners are concerned about a 2021 platform commitment that the Liberals made to deny the charitable status of organizations that have opinions about abortion that are different from the Liberal Party's opinion. The petitioners note that this proposal would jeopardize the charitable status of hospitals, houses of worship, schools, homeless shelters and other charitable organizations that do not agree with the Liberal Party approach to these issues.

The petitioners also note that the government has previously applied a values test to discriminate against worthy applicants to the Canada summer jobs program. They say that charities and other not-for-profit organizations should not be discriminated against on the basis of their political views. The petitioners call on the House of Commons to protect and preserve the application of charitable status on a politically and ideologically neutral basis.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents.

I rise for the 48th time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The community of Swan River is overwhelmed by the extreme levels of crime because of the Liberal government's soft-on-crime laws, such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

Jail has become a revolving door of repeat offenders, as Bill C-75 allows violent offenders to be in jail in the morning and back on the street the same day, and Bill C-5 allows criminals to serve their sentences from home. The people of Swan River see crime in the streets every day, and that is why they are calling for jail, not bail, for violent, repeat offenders.

The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, for anyone just tuning in now, I will recap the issue.

The Liberals chose a group of well-connected elites to give out money on behalf of the government. Those chosen elites then gave the money to companies they either owned or had a financial interest in. When these acts of blatant corruption were reported to the Liberal minister, Liberals tried to cover it up. Parliament investigated the corruption and the House ordered the government to hand over all documents to the RCMP.

The Communist-praising Prime Minister decided he did not need to listen to Parliament. His government refused to hand over all the documents without redactions. Now we are here debating a motion calling on the government to respect the will of Canadians, who elected this Parliament. We are not going to stop debating this motion until the government hands over the documents. To do anything less would mean throwing the towel in on parliamentary democracy.

How do we think this will end? Do we think Canadians are going to rise up in protest that the government's terrible agenda is not sailing through? Do Liberals imagine the Liberal Party base forming a massive convoy of luxury SUVs to come to Ottawa? Do they think a long trail of EVs leaving from Rosedale, the Glebe and Westmount will come riding to their rescue? That is an adorable little fantasy that the Liberals have over there, but it is time for a safe supply of reality.

Most Canadians oppose the government. They oppose its plan to censor Canadians. They oppose its plan to increase taxes. They oppose its plan to ban plastic food packaging. They oppose its plan to ban livestock farming. They oppose the preaching, hectoring and anti-Canadian attitude that comes out of the government. Canadians want to see the government defeated. It cannot happen soon enough.

The scandal involving the Liberals' green slush fund is just the tip of the iceberg. As I mentioned in my speech yesterday, the Liberals chose a group of well-connected elites to hand out money on behalf of the government. Those chosen elite then gave the money to companies they either owned or had a financial interest in.

Instead of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, we now have the local journalism initiative. One difference between the conflict-of-interest scandal at SDTC and the conflict-of-interest scandal with the local journalism initiative is that SDTC was accountable to Parliament through a minister. That is why employees were able to blow the whistle to the deputy minister.

The Liberals did not put the local journalism initiative into an independent agency reporting to Parliament. Instead, they gave the money to lobbyist organizations that campaigned for the cash in the first place. The lobbyists then appointed the owners and executives of media outlets to hand out the funds to the chosen media outlets. Those owners and executives then gave the cash to their own companies. These would be the same media owners and executives who control the media lobbyist associations.

Whether it is SDTC, the local journalism initiative or a billion bucks for WE Charity, it is always the same thing. The Liberals are handing out other people's money to the well-connected Laurentian elite in a circle of self-dealing. Canadians are sick and tired of the corrupt, incompetent government. It needs to hand over the documents to the RCMP. Then it is will be time to call the election Canadians badly need.

Senator Plett, my colleague in the other place, recently gave a rundown of all the government's scandals. He said:

The first scandal in the top three is the SNC Lavalin affair. This started when the Liberals snuck a change to the Criminal Code into the budget bill to allow the government to make deals with corporations found guilty of corruption. Again, pre-empting: “We know there will be corrupt people, so let’s find a way out for them.” This came after months of intense lobbying by SNC Lavalin officials

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

Mr. Speaker, at the very least, I always find my colleague's speeches interesting. They are not necessarily factual, but they are interesting.

The question I have for her is related to her opening statement, which was trying to purport the facts. For example, she indicated that we have SDTC, an organization that went awry, which is actually at arm's-length from the government, I must add. She gave the impression that the government did nothing, which is just not true. There were two internal investigations. The board has been replaced, and we have a freeze on new funding. That is action.

Why should we walk over the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to solve an appetite of the Conservative Party in its desire for an election, when we have the RCMP and the Auditor General expressing concern as to the Conservative tactic the Conservatives are using today?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what Charter of Rights he thinks is being impeded, but let us go to what he started to ask, which was to tell us about the actions that have already being taken. They froze things.

In this instance, SDTC had existed since the early 2000s, and it had run fairly unproblematically until the government took power. It was providing money to companies that provided jobs and grew into multi-million dollar businesses. Because that money was frozen, we now have several companies that were ready to launch into other countries, based on that income. Instead, they ended up having to pay extra taxes and leave Canada altogether. That is one of the implications of the actions that were taken.

In terms of the documents, we need those. We only know about the $400 million that has been misspent out of a billion dollars allocated every year. I know that they do not want those pages released, but there is so much more corruption to uncover.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. She was interrupted at the end, just as she was starting to share with Canadians the large number of scandals that the Liberal government has been engaged in over the last nine years. Perhaps she would wish to continue her speech and regale us with more of these scandals, which have essentially brought the government to its knees.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned SNC-Lavalin, and I thank my colleague for being able to continue this. There are all of these scandals, this litany of scandals, from the several allegations of the corruption of officials in Canada and around the globe for the engineering construction firm SNC-Lavalin to the Prime Minister himself applying pressure to the former attorney general, Jody Wilson-Raybould, to sign an agreement to let SNC-Lavalin off the hook.

These are a few of the many reasons why Canadians no longer trust the government. The only solution is to call a carbon tax election, so the people of Canada can throw the government out and make the decision known for everyone.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not something that happens every day, but, ironically, my colleague from the Conservative Party stole my question. I wanted to ask her to keep going with her list of scandals. This is funny because it does not often happen. That was honestly the question I wanted to ask.

The Conservatives are filibustering right now. That is fine. However, there are plenty of reasons for us to be questioning the current process, especially the one we use to get legislation through. Does my colleague not think it is time to put the motion to a vote and force the government to produce the documents? Then we could get other work done before the election.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that one of my colleagues in the Bloc would ask why we even need to continue demanding these documents gives me pause, and I want to explain further the SNC-Lavalin situation. The former attorney general was not of the opinion that SNC-Lavalin met the criteria in the provisions added to the Criminal Code just months before, but the Prime Minister sent his most trusted adviser and his Clerk of the Privy Council to make it clear to the minister that she had better obey or else. Minister Wilson-Raybould had more credibility than anyone in the PMO, and she did not budge. For that reason, she was shuffled into Veterans Affairs, opening the position of Attorney General to David Lametti. He did not have the same moral compass as Ms. Wilson-Raybould; he was just happy to be in cabinet, so he signed whatever paper the Prime Minister put in front of him. When this scandal became public, the Prime Minister claimed that what was in The Globe and Mail was false. Of course, it was not false; the Prime Minister lied, and his office tried to ruin the reputation of Ms. Wilson-Raybould in the media.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

There is a point of order; I can imagine what it is going to be.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, using the word “lie” is unparliamentary, and the member should have edited it out of her speech.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I will just ask the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to please withdraw that.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that word. I thank my biggest fan in the Liberal government for pointing that out.

To finish up with my colleague from the Bloc, it is important that we drive the message home. We must make sure that every Canadian who has tuned in to Parliament, or not, hears by word of mouth how corrupt the government is. We should not let another piece of business go until this has been addressed properly. The only way to address it overall, so that everyone has a say, is to have a carbon tax election now.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke may be surprised that I think the chronology of events as she describes it is accurate, with one exception. As someone who is in the Green Party, I know the word “green” gets thrown around as if we had something to do with this. Obviously, we do not. There is no word of dispute from me as to the chronology, except for this: We do not know that the people who were put on that board had any connection to any political party at all. In fact, the chair of the board, who egregiously violated conflict of interest standards, was an adviser to Jim Flaherty, much-admired former minister of finance under Stephen Harper, and to Stephen Harper himself. In other words, like many people in business in Canada, this person seems to have made sure that they had favours with many different parties and were not associated with any one in particular.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is sticking up for the Liberals and propping them up. This probably explains why, during one of my constituency clinics in Renfrew, I had a couple come all the way from her riding to make an appointment to see me. They had grown up in Renfrew and, from time to time, they had seen the writings that we had handed out to their family members. They wanted to tell me first-hand that they wanted a Conservative riding represented where they live. They want a Conservative to be elected in her riding, and they want her out. This is why.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the appointment process, would the member agree that we would have to change it? In the past, in the Harper administration, we had Bruce Carson, who was also incarcerated. We have a whole series of other appointments that have problems, and then we have the current situation that has taken place.

Would more transparency for appointments be something Conservatives would support, which would then also be tabled in the House of Commons here when we make these decisions?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the best step to take at this point is to have the documents produced, so we can see how deep the corruption goes. We should then have the member who just spoke and his party stop propping up the government and have a carbon tax election so we can get to work on what needs to be done. Then we can deal with the appointments.