Debates of Nov. 18th, 2024

The House resumed from November 8 consideration of the motion, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of all the great residents of Simcoe—Grey.

I just want to give a quick thanks. Last week was Remembrance Day, and I was invited to 15 ceremonies. I attended two of them on Remembrance Day, the only two I could go to during that time period since I was driving. I just want to thank the volunteers in my EDA for helping out to make sure that a wreath was placed at each event. I also had many volunteers out this weekend, as we had two parades, one in Angus and one in Collingwood. We have many parades. I thank them for their support.

For those who were not here the last time I spoke, I was talking about seeing scandal after scandal, whether it is WE Charity, SNC-Lavalin or, probably the largest one, the green slush fund, and about our frustration. I was talking about some of my residents, like Stephanie, who started a new poultry farm in my riding. She was due a GST rebate in April but had not received it by June, so she reached out to my office. In July she was told it was under audit and to follow up in three months. Already frustrated after the three months, she said that the GST refund could really help keep her new business going. However, it is government, so we waited until October 3, and guess what we were told. There was no audit noted on her file at all and no one was sure what was holding up the refund.

A week later, the CRA said there was no agent on her file at all. For nine months, this brand new business waited for a much-needed rebate cheque, but the CRA had no one on the file, could not say why the refund had not been processed and could not tell her when it might be. It is another incredibly frustrating experience for a Canadian just trying to get ahead.

As I have said here before, all of this is while the Liberals directed $338 million to projects in which board members of the green slush fund had a direct conflict of interest. For anyone who is paying attention right now, that is why so many people are frustrated with the Prime Minister and want him to go. Even some members of the Liberal Party are starting to understand that as well.

I am going to end my speech with the words of one of the courageous whistle-blowers who helped bring the Auditor General's attention to the corruption at the green slush fund:

The true failure of the situation stands at the feet of our current government, whose decision to protect wrongdoers and cover up their findings over the last 12 months is a serious indictment of how our democratic systems and institutions are being corrupted by political interference.

I want to take this opportunity to thank that whistle-blower, who brought this to light. We do not need it, but it is why we are seeing frustration.

It is time to axe the tax. It is time for us to build the homes. It is time to fix the budget. It is time to stop the crime. Frustrated Canadians have had enough. They are worried about another budget and what the government will do to all Canadians and how it is going to affect their lives. It is time for us to call a carbon tax election and let them decide what the right thing to do is. It is time to bring it home.

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

Mr. Speaker, the multi-million dollar game continues as members of the Conservative Party want to send a very strong message to Canadians: They are more interested in the interests of the leader of the Conservative Party than anyone else's. They are not listening to what Canadians are saying and continue to play a multi-million dollar game. I say shame on the Conservatives.

If they wanted to contribute something positive and change the dial, one thing they could consider doing is recognizing that the leader of the official opposition still refuses to get a security clearance to deal with the issue of international foreign interference. My constituents still want to know why the leader of the Conservative Party does not want to get a security clearance. What is he hiding? Is there something in his past that he does not want to tell Canadians?

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite comical to get that type of question. Last week, we had a week in our ridings, and I hope the member opposite spent a lot of time visiting his constituents. No one talked about anything other than the scandal and corruption of the government at every event I attended. From veterans to those at birthday celebrations to new Canadians, they all wanted to know when the election was going to happen. The emails I receive in my office are consistently about the frustration that Canadians are feeling. They understand that the government does not seem to care, so it is time to have a carbon tax election.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member referenced Remembrance Day commemorations. This is very important. I want to underscore the incredible work that went into the Remembrance Day commemorations in New Westminster—Burnaby, including at New Westminster Secondary School, the remarkable ceremony at George Derby veterans hospital, at the New Westminster City Hall, at the South Burnaby Cenotaph, at Burnaby's Korean War Memorial and at the Royal Canadian Legion branch 83 in Burnaby and branch 2 in New Westminster. All of these commemorations were extremely important.

We know that our veterans gave their lives for democracy, and what they want to see is a functioning democracy. The NDP in this corner of the House was instrumental in getting to the bottom of the SNC-Lavalin scandal and the WE Charity scandal, as we are doing now with the SDTC scandal. We support the motion.

The Conservatives had over $7 billion in scandals and have never apologized. Will the Conservatives apologize for their scandals, which they refused to let Parliament get to the bottom of?

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we are here to get the documents. That is the discussion and debate we are on. I do not know why other parties are deflecting questions instead of dealing with what really needs to be done.

It is a simple process. It is unfathomable that the House made a decision and we have a government that is not going along with it. What I am hearing in my riding is that people are frustrated. Why are we here? Why do I have the ability to vote and to make a difference when the government will not accept the vote on this issue? Once again, le us get the documents so we can move on.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what a great way to start a week: listening to the great and insightful knowledge being shared by my neighbour and colleague from Simcoe—Grey.

Because he is from my area and his riding borders mine, I want to touch base with him. I hear day in and day out in my riding about how hard he works in his riding and how many events he goes to. He is always out there. He has boots on the ground and does anything he can to listen to his constituents. I appreciate that from him.

Since you have heard so much information, I want to know if you are also hearing about this terrible loss of $400 million, about how much your residents are suffering and about how the $400 million from this fiasco scandal could have helped residents in your riding.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am glad the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte heard great things about me and my riding, but I think he was talking about the member for Simcoe—Grey.

The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey.

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for those nice comments. Just so everyone here is aware, I drove last night to make sure I was in time, and I think the hon. member flew, so I brought his clothes with me. I think he is thanking me for bringing his clothes.

I hear all the time about wasted spending and have heard great thoughts about what we could do with that amount of money in my riding. For example, hospitals could be built. I know of two that need funding. We could lower taxes so there is more money in seniors' pockets. All the money going to scandals could, quite frankly, go to debt or to finding ways to save money. Right now people are struggling, whether it is with food, rent or mortgages, so any money the government is wasting is money that is not going to good causes.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the good people of the riding of Waterloo, especially the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 530. We had a tremendous ceremony in Waterloo, and it was really impressive to see the number of people who showed up. We need to appreciate and never take for granted the democracy we have.

A point that was raised was about the challenges Canadians are facing and the importance of housing. That is interesting. As we know, 18 members out of the entire Conservative Party care about and support their municipalities when it comes to ensuring that each individual has a safe and affordable place to call home. It is unfortunate that partisan politics is being played, and I commend those 18 Conservative members for stepping up and supporting their municipalities.

Was the member one of those 18 MPs? Does he know anybody in the House who is opposed to this question of privilege? I support it and support the Speaker's ruling to ensure that it goes to PROC and we get to the bottom of it.

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, this discussion is about releasing the documents. That is the first thing.

I come from a municipal background. I was a mayor for many years and was then on the two-tier county council. I can say that for a lot of programs, there are lots of announcements saying the Liberals are going to have all this funding and it is going to be fantastic, but it does not work. The rural areas do not get funding. Sometimes, not enough people can access funds from the programs; it is only great announcements. The Canada Infrastructure Bank, for example, was a flop that did not amount to anything. We just get empty promises at election time so the Liberals hope they can get some votes. Quite frankly, I think Canadians are frustrated and have had enough.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for all of his hard work.

He discussed in his speech that there was an issue with CRA and a small business, and it withheld funds for a really long time. I have the same thing happening in my riding with a small business owed $90,000. For no reason, it has been withheld. The Liberals seem to have a lot of time to give their friends money and get into all these corrupt situations, but do not have enough time to help Canadians. I wonder if the member can comment on that.

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we could put our hands up and ask certain questions of members, not just on this side but across the whole House: Are services better today than when they were elected? Are their staff more frustrated today when dealing with these bureaucracies than when they were elected? I am sure the answer would be yes, and I think that would be true right across the board if people were to give a true answer.

For me, there has been frustration in getting information, getting through on the lines and getting money back, and all the while, the only thing that is better is the number of employees. Way more employees have been added, yet we have a lot fewer services. The frustration from individuals coming into my office is unbelievable. They will wait all day sometimes to get something with no phone calls back. It has never been like this before, so it is frustrating.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The question is on the subamendment.

If a member participating in person wishes that the subamendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until later this day at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from November 5 consideration of the motion.

Request for Witness to Attend at the Bar of the House

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what is it going to take for the Prime Minister to fire the minister from Edmonton, the Minister of Employment? It seems that every day there are new revelations surrounding this scandal-plagued minister. With each of these new revelations, it is crystal clear, to seemingly everyone but the minister and the Prime Minister, that the minister is about the last person in the House who should be sitting around the cabinet table.

Let us look at the facts. The Minister of Employment was a partner with one Stephen Anderson in a shady PPE company called Global Health Imports. This is a company that has been sued by multiple clients and has been ordered by Alberta courts to pay back $7.8 million for ripping off clients. Not only that, the minister almost certainly violated the Conflict of Interest Act. More specifically, the Conflict of Interest Act states clearly that a minister of the Crown shall not be involved in the operations of business.

Text messages reveal that someone named Randy from Global Health Imports was intricately involved in business during the very same time that the Minister of Employment sat in cabinet. More specifically, those text messages reveal that this Randy from Global Health Imports was involved in a half-a-million dollar shakedown of a California based client that had ordered PPE equipment. At the behest of this Randy, the client, the Ghaoui Group, transferred half-a-million dollars to Global Health Imports, the PPE was never delivered and the Ghaoui Group has commenced legal action, claiming wire fraud, among other things.

The Minister of Employment says he is not that Randy, except for the fact that, at all material times, the Ghaoui Group believed that the Randy in the text messages was the Minister of Employment. The minister's business partner, Stephen Anderson, has admitted there is no one from Global Health Imports named Randy other than the minister. The text messages reference Randy as a partner. We know the minister had been a partner. The text messages place this Randy in Vancouver. It turns out that the Minister of Employment was in Vancouver at the same time, and no one can find this other Randy. There is no plausible explanation as to who this other Randy could be. The only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that the Randy in the text messages is the Minister of Employment.

Therefore, the Minister of Employment broke the law and violated the Conflict of Interest Act. On that basis alone, he should be removed from cabinet.

However, there is more. Recently, we learned that Global Health Imports, while the minister was an active partner in the company, made two bids for federal contracts in which the company held itself out as a wholly owned indigenous company. The problem with that is that it is not a wholly owned indigenous company, because neither Anderson nor the minister are indigenous. What the minister and his business partner Anderson did is clear. They tried to take advantage of the government's indigenous procurement program to obtain government contracts. In short, they tried to steal contracts that should be awarded to legitimate indigenous businesses. This is cultural appropriation that is completely disgusting, and it is something else. It is called fraud, and it raises questions of potential criminality involving the minister.

The minister says that he had no idea, that it was all Anderson who did this behind his back. I wish to re-emphasize that the minister was a 50% shareholder and was one of two business partners. For the minister to claim that he had no idea that they were trying to rig the system to steal government contracts is not believable. It is even less believable in the face of what has come to light, which is that the minister has a long-standing track record of misrepresenting his indigenous status. In that regard, I would note that this is a minister, according to news reports, who, as far back as the 2012 Liberal convention when he was seeking a party nomination, represented himself to be Métis.

In 2015, after he was elected, in a social media post, the Liberal Party listed the minister as one of 10 indigenous Liberal MPs elected. The minister said that he was Métis back in 2012, but then, when he was elected to this place, between 2016 and 2018 he repeatedly characterized himself as a non-status adopted Cree, referencing his adopted great-grandmother, who he claimed had Cree roots. He even touted that he had a Cree name called “strong eagle man”.

When confronted about his status and the fact that he was falsely representing this, the minister has seen fit to now change his story to say that he is not a non-status adopted Cree. In fact, he is now alleging that his mother is Métis and his brother is Métis. The bottom line is that this is a minister who continually changes his story. He misrepresents who he is. He misrepresents who he is not. The minister is a cultural appropriator. He has tried to appropriate and represent himself as being indigenous for political gain as well as financial gain.

Today, it is reported in the National Post, if that is not enough, that the minister's company, Global Health Imports, while the minister was a partner, was sharing a PO box with none other than an individual involved in cocaine trafficking, someone who was busted by the Edmonton police in 2013 and busted again in the Dominican Republic, caught with 200 kilograms of cocaine. This is who the minister is associated with, who the minister is doing business with or who he is at least connected to in terms of sharing a post office box. It really begs this question. Whose company are ministers in the government keeping?

Between the $7.8 million in judgments against his company, the fact that he violated the Conflict of Interest Act, the fact that he has misrepresented himself as indigenous for political and financial gain and his ties, now, to someone connected to cocaine, it begs the question, again. What is it going to take for the Prime Minister to fire the minister from Edmonton, the Minister of Employment?

We have before us a question of privilege to bring in Anderson, who defied a parliamentary committee when he refused to disclose who Randy was, and we know why. Because it is the Minister of Employment. When he comes before the House at the bar, we need to ensure that the process is an orderly one.

With that, I would like to move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by replacing paragraph (f) with the following:

“(f) during Mr. Anderson's appearance at the Bar for the purpose of responding to questions, which shall be asked by Members, with questions and answers being addressed through the Speaker:

(i) during the first round of questioning, ten minutes shall be allocated to a Member from each recognized party in the following order: the Official Opposition, the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party and the government party,

(ii) during the second round of questioning, there shall be 13 periods of five minutes each for Members from the recognized parties, who shall be recognized consistent with the proportions observed during Oral Questions, namely, and in the following order, five members of the Official Opposition, two members of the Bloc Québécois, two members of the New Democratic Party, one member of the government party, and three members of the Official Opposition, provided that the same Member may be recognized more than once,

(iii) during either round, Members may be permitted to share their time with one or more Members by so indicating to the Speaker,

(iv) each of Mr. Anderson's answers shall approximately reflect the time taken by the question which preceded it, and

(v) the Speaker may, at his discretion, suspend the sitting briefly during the questioning.

(g) at the expiry of the time provided for questioning, and after Mr. Anderson has been excused from further attendance, the House shall resume consideration of the usual business of the House for a Wednesday; and”.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The amendment is in order.

Question and comments, the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton, like myself as chair of the ethics committee, has had a front-row seat to what I would call a charade, a mockery and contempt of this institution. Mr. Anderson came to the committee. He would not answer questions directly and this is why we are in this situation.

I want to ask the member about the minister. We have seen text messages. We have seen WhatsApp messages. We know that the minister was a director in this company and that he received payments from this company. We also have seen, lately, a sworn affidavit that identifies the minister by his name.

Who does the member think Randy is?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question, as to who is Randy, is obvious. It is the minister. The member is quite right in his characterization. What has happened before the ethics committee has been a charade, not just on the part of Mr. Anderson but on the part of the minister.

The minister first came to committee and said that he could not be the Randy in the text messages because he was in Vancouver at a cabinet meeting. Then text messages came out that showed that the Randy in the text messages was in Vancouver and the minister was in Vancouver. He came to committee and suddenly admitted, after claiming he had no association with Anderson other than he was a partner, that he had spoken to Anderson at the material time in question. Frankly, he has not been forthcoming all along and we need answers.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member a question based on the amendment he has put forward.

Members are duly elected to this place, and even though we recognize the parties that have more than 12 seats as officially recognized parties, there are members of the Green Party who contribute in this chamber and have been duly elected. I wonder if the member would be interested in providing space to the leader, or at least one of the members, of the Green Party to be able to ask questions. Within his amendment, he suggested people could share time. Acknowledging those individuals who have been duly elected, would he have any interest in ensuring that all people represented in this chamber are able to ask questions, as he is suggesting we should do?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is something of significance in obtaining official party status. Official party status should mean something. The Green Party does not have official party status. It has two members of Parliament who are the equivalent of independent members of Parliament. If the Green Party wishes to participate in debate and committee, then what it should go about doing is to convince Canadians to vote for it and elect more Green MPs.

With respect to the debate and the questioning that will take place about Mr. Anderson, if the Liberals want to cede their time to the Green Party, I invite them to do so.