Debates of Nov. 18th, 2024

Request for Witness to Attend at the Bar of the House

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much join with the member and share his deep concern about the need for absolute probity and respect for ethics in any cabinet, whether of the current government or any other government.

My question for him is this. I find myself still confused. There was reference to “Randy” being involved in business decisions. The defence from the minister thus far is that it was not him, that there was a different Randy. Has another Randy been identified in any of the documents or before the committee, which might plausibly back up that contention by the minister? Is there another Randy in that company that this could be referring to or not?

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

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no, no other Randy has been identified. His business partner, Anderson, said the only Randy at the company was the Minister of Employment but then, implausibly, claimed the Randy in the text messages was not the minister because of nine autocorrects, which simply is not credible. The minister himself can identify no other Randy. When Global News embarked upon finding out who that other Randy is, the only Randy it was able to come up with is the minister.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton for his great speech and the work the committee has been doing on this matter. It is very important. I appreciate the words he spoke this morning.

One of the things that struck me repeatedly was when he said the Prime Minister has an obligation to Canadians and to the credibility of this House to deal with those who have been found in contempt, dealing in corruption or any sort of thing that would bring the government into disrepute.

I would like to ask the member if he can identify a reason in his mind as to why the Prime Minister has been hesitant, reluctant or just negligent in dealing with the minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would submit that perhaps the reason the Prime Minister has been reluctant to deal with the minister is that he has engaged in similar conduct as the minister. The minister violated the Conflict of Interest Act; the Prime Minister violated the Conflict of Interest Act not once, but twice. In fact, he has the dubious distinction of being the first Prime Minister to be found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act. That may shed light on his reluctance to fire this corrupt minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know from evidence that Mr. Anderson and the Minister of Employment have both denied having any communication with each other since the minister's election in 2019.

How does the member reconcile those points with the story that broke that confirmed the minister reached out to Mr. Anderson with respect to an outstanding Purolator bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, we learned about that because the minister got caught as a result of additional text messages.

The minister represented, as the member pointed out, that he had had no communication with Mr. Anderson. Then text messages revealed that the Randy in question was in Vancouver while the minister was in Vancouver. He was asked to explain that. He tried to explain he had communicated with Mr. Anderson about a Purolator bill but not about the half-million dollar shakedown.

Was this a coincidence? I think not. By the way, calling or making inquiries to Anderson about paying a bill pertains to the operations of a business, so it raises even more questions about this minister violating the Conflict of Interest Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, just to put things into a bit of context here, ever since day one, even when the Prime Minister was leader of the third party, the Conservative Party has been focused on character assassination.

Now let us fast-forward to what we have today. The Ethics Commissioner has cleared the minister in question not once, not twice, but on three occasions. Why should any Canadian believe the Conservative character assassination we have witnessed in the last 10-plus years over what the Ethics Commissioner is saying?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is simply not accurate to say the Ethics Commissioner has cleared the minister.

In fact, the minister has not been forthcoming with the Ethics Commissioner, just as he has not been forthcoming with the committee. He was supposed to turn over his phone devices to the Ethics Commissioner. He did not do that. He only turned over one phone, and then when he got caught, he turned over another phone. He does not appear to have advised the Ethics Commissioner that he had been in contact with Anderson at the time in question.

There are a lot of questions that have not been answered. We need to get to the bottom of this.

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

Mr. Speaker, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that the Conservative Party wants to keep playing this multi-million dollar game, and that is what it is. It is all about the self-interest of the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative Party of Canada, which wants to prevent the House of Commons from being able to debate issues that Canadians are genuinely concerned about and a number of pieces of legislation that are before us.

I would repeat the question I had asked the member opposite, and I think members opposite should listen very carefully. This is the tactic of the Conservatives, even when they were in government, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and their current leader was a member of the cabinet and the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister. The way they attempt to win an election is to label things as corrupt and to attack personalities, and no personality has been harder hit by the Conservative Party than the Prime Minister's. They do it not only inside the chamber but also outside the chamber, and they have no reservations whatsoever in terms of misleading Canadians.

We can look at the question I asked the member opposite. Not once, not twice, but three times the independent office of the Ethics Commissioner has cleared the minister in question, yet the Conservative Party does not recognize that. It does not recognize the independence of the office, because what trumps the commissioner is the political, self-serving agenda of the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative Party in general. That is why we have seen individual former prime ministers reflect very negatively on the Conservative Party. The late Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell and others have been critical of the Conservative Party of Canada today because it has lost its moral compass in dealing with issues of a progressive nature as it focuses solely on misleading through social media, and virtually attempting to paralyze the House of Commons.

There are no opposition days, no government business, legislation or private members' bills being discussed, because the Conservative Party is completely preoccupied with this multi-million dollar game. This is a continuation, just like another privilege issue we are debating. The Conservatives brought forward another privilege issue, which we have before us today. They said to stop the debate on the amendment to the amendment to a motion that they introduced, which all of us wanted to support, but it did not fit their agenda because they did not want it to come to an actual vote. They did not want the debate to go to the standing committee. Instead, they want to use the motion as a way to blackmail members of Parliament and to filibuster what should be taking place on the floor of the House of Commons.

It is disrespectful to Canadians. It is absolutely a waste of tax dollars, and I would suggest that, ironically, it is borderline in contempt of Parliament, the manner in which the Conservatives continue to play this multi-million dollar game. The best way to describe it, in terms of the abuse, is to look at the motion we are debating today. The essence of it is that a member of the community is called to the bar and has to answer questions. Is there anyone opposing that?

However, like the other motion of privilege, which is still going to be debated this afternoon, it stops the government from bringing anything else forward.

[An hon. member]

Yay.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one member across the way said “yay”, but there are other issues, and not just government issues.

The Conservatives have opposition day motions, and when they bring them forward, they like to say the motions are confidence motions. However, I think Canadians would love to see an opposition day motion that deals with the housing accelerator fund. We have 17 Conservative members across the way who are scared because the leader of the Conservative Party is saying the party opposes it. The party is going to kill that particular fund. Therefore, we have Conservative MPs who are having a difficult time trying to justify their very existence on such an important issue. We should have a vote on that particular issue, but we cannot do so. The Conservatives know full well that all they have to do is continue to put up speaker after speaker on matters of privilege, and then nothing else can take place on the floor for debate.

The housing accelerator fund is providing thousands of housing units, or homes, in every region of our country, but we have the official opposition opposing it. Actually, that is not fair to say. We have the leader of the official opposition saying that the program is bad and needs to be cut. However, a dozen or more Conservative members are saying they like the program. They are writing to the Minister of Housing to say that they want this program to be applied in our communities. We have mayors in different areas of the country saying that this is a good program. However, there is this division within the Conservative Party. In order to avoid that sort of a division, why not continue to talk about privilege? It is a privilege motion for which everyone is saying yes to having the member come before the bar, but the Conservatives have no interest in voting on it. As I have indicated very clearly, it is a fairly straightforward motion that Mr. Anderson be called before the bar to answer questions. If everyone believes that, fine, we will accept that and allow it to come to a vote. However, what is the purpose of the Conservative Party not only continuing to debate the motion but now also actually moving an amendment to the motion, which means that we could see dozens speak to it?

What happened on the previous motion? We saw over 100 Conservatives speak to it. Weeks and weeks of potential debate on other issues were left to the wayside and never dealt with, such as Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act; Bill C-66, which would transfer issues related to sexual abuse from military courts to civil courts; Bill C-33, strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act, which deals with our supply lines; and Bill C-63, the proposed online harms act to protect children on the Internet. This is not to mention the fall economic statement or the many opposition days that are being lost because the Conservatives are filling the time on issues of privilege, even though the very motions they are bringing forward are ones that we are okay with actually seeing pass. The reason, as I started off by saying, is that it is a multi-million dollar game, and it is all about character assassination. This is why I posed the question to the member opposite: What is the issue?

The issue is that we have a minister representing an Edmonton riding, and there have been concerns in regard to some text messaging and how that could have had an impact on the issue at hand. As I have pointed out, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has looked at this issue not once, not twice, but three times and cleared the minister responsible each time.

When I posed that particular question to the member, his response was that it is not true. It is true. Members of the Conservative Party know it is true, but they continue to push. Why is that? It is because, as I pointed out in my question, even when the Prime Minister was the leader of the Liberal Party in third party, the Conservative Party continued to attack the individual. Nothing has changed. The wonderful thing about Hansard is that everything said inside the chamber is actually recorded and there for people to read. People do not have to believe me; they can just read the Hansards. We can go back to the time when the leader of the Liberal Party was in third party. We will find personal attacks on the leader, especially in member statements.

We have witnessed it of other ministers inside the chamber. It is the type of thing where I could enter into that same field, talk about personalities and start to look at the leader of the Conservative Party. I referred to an interesting document. By the way, the relevance of this is in regard to the issue of attacking the character of an individual. It is some sort of a report that was published. The title is “Stephen Harper, Serial Abuser of Power: The Evidence Compiled”. Actually, not all the evidence is compiled, because there are a number of things I am aware of that are not actually included in this document. However, it is about abuse of power, scandals and corruption.

There are 70 of them listed, for anyone who is interested, but one of them that is really interesting is that Stephen Harper was actually found in contempt of Parliament. We can think about that. He is the only prime minister in the British Commonwealth, which includes Canada, to ever be found in contempt of Parliament. Can we guess who his parliamentary secretary was? It was the leader of the Conservative Party.

That is one, but I am a little off topic there. I go through this article, and the leader of the Conservative Party's name comes up on more than one occasion. Let us go to page 9, to something called the vanity video; the article reads, “The Globe and Mail revealed that Harper’s chosen Minister for Democratic Reform [the now leader of the Conservative Party] commissioned a team of public servants for overtime work on a Sunday to film him glad-handing constituents.”

It goes on, but he was promoting using civil servants and wearing his Conservative Party uniform, and of course, we cannot do that. If the Ethics Commissioner was to look into that, I suspect maybe they would have found some sort of fine or a penalty, or he would have been found offside.

However, one of the ones Harper is really well known for is the “Elections bill [that] strips power from Elections Canada”. The story says, “The Fair Elections Act also makes it harder for Canadians to vote as more ID is required. Nationwide protests in which more than 400 academics took part forced [the leader of the Conservative Party] to withdraw some measures in the bill because of their alleged anti-democratic bent.”

Anti-democratic: I think there could be some relevancy here. It goes on to say, the “Democratic Reform Minister [the leader of the Conservative Party] accused the Elections Canada CEO Marc Mayrand of being a power monger and wearing a team jersey.”

Here we have the Conservative Party now calling into question the Ethics Commissioner, but when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for democratic reform, he labelled the chief of our electoral system, Elections Canada. That is why I do not say it lightly. We have a leader of the Conservative Party who is in borderline contempt, in terms of what we are witnessing in Parliament today. He has no qualms doing that. It is demonstrated.

Not only that, but if we take a look at the issue of security clearance, I do not know how many times I have asked the question of Conservative MP after Conservative MP: Why does the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada not get the security clearance so that he can better understand foreign interference? That is a very real issue. We have all sorts of things that are taking place in our community. An individual has been murdered; individuals are being held in many different ways for financial purposes. We have all sorts of interference in political parties, in the leader of the Conservative Party's own leadership.

When he was elected as leader, there were issues related to foreign interference and how that influenced the leadership that he ultimately won. The Bloc, the Green, the NDP and the Prime Minister all have the security clearance. He is the only leader who does not. Why will the leader of the Conservative Party not do likewise? The arguments he uses are bogus. He knows that. We have experts clearly indicating that the leader of the Conservative Party has nothing to worry about in terms of being able to get the security clearance, from a perspective of being able to listen and talk about the issue of the day. That is not the concern. However, it does raise an issue. What is in the background of the leader of the Conservative Party regarding which, ultimately, he is scared to get that security clearance? I believe there is something there.

There is something that the leader of the Conservative Party does not want Canadians to know. I think we should find that out. That is why, whether it is me or other members of the government, we will continue to call upon the leader of the Conservative Party to get that security clearance.

Instead of playing this multi-million dollar game, let us start dealing with the issues that are important to Canadians. Let us talk about the fall economic statement and the legislation before the House that the Conservatives do not want to have discussions on. Let us have opposition days and private members' bills. We should allow the chamber to do the work that Canadians want us to do.

As the Conservative Party, and the leader of the Conservative Party in particular, is so focused on them, I can assure people following the debate that the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister will always continue to be focused on Canadians first and foremost. Unfortunately, we have to participate in this game; however, at the end of the day, we will continue to push a Canadian agenda, an agenda that reflects what we believe Canadians want.

That is something we will continue to advocate for. I would ask that, if Conservatives across the way understand the cost of the game they are playing, they stop with the character assassination they began back in 2011. Let us get down to business and do some good things for Canadians. We can do so much more if we start working together. Not only were all the other parties given a responsibility to do some good things inside the chamber, but the Conservative Party was too.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader spends most of the time in his speeches casting aspersions on this side of the aisle and pointing fingers.

However, on his side of the aisle there is the cabinet Minister of Public Safety, who was involved in a $25-million clam scam; the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, who has had two ethics breaches in giving money to her friends; the Minister of Environment and Climate Change giving money to a company that he is invested in; and, of course, the Minister of Innovation, who did not meet the contract obligations to get the money back in the green slush fund scandal.

Is the member not concerned about the corruption in the cabinet members on the Liberal side?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when I was in third party status inside the House of Commons not that long ago, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, I was more concerned about the corruption, abuse of power and so many other things within that particular government.

I can tell the member opposite that, as she would know, the sole purpose of the Conservative Party under the current leadership is nothing more than character assassination. That continues to be the case. She tries to say that the Liberal government is corrupt; under that definition, I would hate to think how she would classify Stephen Harper and his government.

As I have said, there is a document that, if I had the leave of the House, I would be happy to table. There are 70 things in which Stephen Harper was a serial abuser of power, and all sorts of scandal, corruption and abuse of power. I can tell members that there is even more, because there is stuff that I am aware of that is not in the booklet.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy hearing my colleague.

Of course the NDP wants to get to the bottom of the issue. We do believe in supporting the original motion and in calling the gentleman in question before the bar to answer questions. Canadians deserve to have answers.

I am a bit perplexed, though, and I want to ask my colleague for his reaction. There has been a principle, when Parliament calls people before the bar, that there is a fair distribution among the recognized parties in the House. That is certainly how it was when Mr. Firth appeared before the bar.

The Conservatives have just tabled a motion in which, after paying lip service in the first round to the equality in Parliament's calling the individual before the bar, they are now proposing to take two-thirds of all of the subsequent questions. That is unbelievable to me, particularly given the Conservatives' history of cover-ups during the Harper regime. There was unbelievable corruption and scandals, all of which were covered up by Conservatives.

Does the parliamentary secretary think it is appropriate that Conservatives try to take two-thirds of the questions, when the process should involve all members of Parliament?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one would think that there would be a higher sense of fairness within the amendment, and one only needs to take a look at what took place the last time someone was called to the bar or at what happens in our standing committees. Am I surprised? No.

However, I can tell the member opposite that I am anticipating that there will be an amendment to the amendment before us. The Conservatives have demonstrated that their true intentions are not necessarily to see tangible results on their motions but rather to continue to prevent the House from being able to deal with concerns that Canadians have. Conservatives are more preoccupied with the self-interest of the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative Party in general than they are with providing any sort of movement forward in getting legislation passed and debating opposition motions and private members' bills.

We have seen that clearly demonstrated over the last five weeks or so.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to just build upon some of the comments the member shared on the question of privilege, the amendment and the subamendment that we are debating. I am sure there will be more to come.

The member mentioned something with regard to the history of former prime minister Stephen Harper. I would ask him to correct me if I am wrong. I believe that there has been only one prime minister in the history of Canada since Confederation to be found in contempt of Parliament, and I believe it was former prime minister Stephen Harper. I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

Additionally, the member referred to the housing accelerator fund. It is no secret that the leader of the official opposition would get rid of the program. The program helps constituents within the riding of Waterloo. The region of Waterloo has also done really well. We know that each Canadian should have a safe and affordable place to call home.

Fewer than 15% of Conservative members, 18 of them, actually took the time to support their municipalities when it came to housing. I believe the member said the number was 17, but I think it is now 18. They are no longer allowed to speak about it. They are Conservatives but they should fight for Canadians. I am a Canadian first. I chose my political party, but I will always fight for my constituents and for my community of Waterloo.

I would like to hear the member's comments, first of all in regard to whether a Canadian prime minister has ever been found in contempt of Parliament, and second as to what the role of members of Parliament is. Should they be supporting their communities or should they have to have blind trust in their leader?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I appreciate the two-part question. On the first part, as I have indicated, Stephen Harper was actually the only prime minister in the history of Canada, and even beyond Canada, throughout the British Commonwealth, who has actually been found in contempt of Parliament. An interesting fact is that the current leader of the Conservative Party of Canada was actually Harper's parliamentary secretary at the time.

In regard to the housing issue, I believe that if we could stop debating the multi-million dollar game that the Conservatives are playing, maybe we could have an opposition day on the accelerator fund and see whether it would pass the floor of the House of Commons. I believe it would. Rather than talking about the members who still support the program, the real question is about the 18 members who have written to the government saying they indirectly support it. That would be an interesting vote. There is no way the leader of the Conservative Party would allow it to take place.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the stuff is really flying around the room today. It is an interesting debate.

The current government has had more ethics violations and more scandals than any other government in the history of our country. It has spent more than all other governments combined and padded its pockets and Liberal friends' pockets with more taxpayer funds than all other governments combined.

The Prime Minister has worn blackface more times than he can remember, yet the member stands up and still backs him up time and again. The scandals have gone on and on, with “elbowgate”, the Aga Khan scandal and blackface scandals, but the member for Winnipeg North stands up and defends him time and time again.

A simple question to our hon. colleague is this: Who is the other Randy? Who is Randy? I do not think that even Randy knows who he is nowadays. Does the hon. member know who the real Randy is?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there should be a little bit of a warning given on TV when there is a bar going across the screen that says that a Conservative is speaking. There should be something in brackets saying that all comments being made are not necessarily true or accurate. At the end of the day, the Conservatives call the current government the most scandalous government in the history of Canada. What a bunch of crap.

I am sorry. I withdraw that word—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I do want the hon. member to retract that word.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was thinking of the acronym of the former Conservative Party. I apologize.

The bottom line is that the Conservative members' just saying something in the chamber does not make it true. People must understand that members of the Conservative Party, whether inside the chamber or on social media, has no qualms in terms of misrepresenting the reality of life and of factual information at times.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's Liberal minister from Alberta has said a lot of things, but we know he is a fake and a fraud. He said that he was not the Randy involved in the company in question in hundreds of thousands of dollars in fraud cases that are now before the courts. He said he was not involved with the company while he was in cabinet, but of course now there is evidence that is not true. He also said that he was indigenous, in order to profit from contracts, effectively stealing from members of first nations communities. He should resign.

Here we are today, again dealing with more revelations about the Liberal Prime Minister's minister from Edmonton. There are lots of proud Albertans who serve on this side of the House. I know it is a real challenge for them to have to hear over and over again about the member whom the Liberal Prime Minister has elevated to cabinet to represent that province, because the minister does not represent the people and the values of the great Canadian province of Alberta, nor does he represent the values of the hard-working Canadians from across our country.

We have heard today in debate from representatives of the Prime Minister that there is some kind of Conservative fiction, but they are telling on themselves. After nine years, the facts have become really inconvenient for the NDP-Liberal coalition.

The National Post says, “‘It's just shocking’: Liberal cabinet minister's shifting Indigenous identity scorned”. Global News says, “Ethics Committee reopens...inquiry in wake of new ‘Randy’ texts”. Here is another from the National Post: “Multiple texts about ‘other Randy’ blamed on ‘auto-correct’ by [the minister's] former business partner”.

Le Devoir says that the minister from Edmonton's past is being questioned. I want to zero in on this for a quick second because there has been a lot of talk about the other Randy. How many other Randys are there? Let us start with fake journalist Randy because the article in Le Devoir, from June 27, lays out the the disproved claim by the Liberal minister at the heart of the scandal that Randy was a journalist, so journalist Randy is reported in Le Devoir.

There is also across the Canadian media spectrum, including in CBC, the minister's fake claims about being indigenous, so there is that other Randy. In committee, Liberal members have said that the other Randy might not even be Randy; it might be Randeep, so there is the cover-up Randy. Today in the news, there is cocaine Randy.

There is a cocaine connection with a Liberal cabinet minister. It is not like he owned a 1% share in a company; 50% of the business was owned by the Liberal minister. What was the business? It was a pandemic profiteering enterprise, to be clear, that is now at the centre of more than a half-dozen fraud allegations that are before the courts and that is the subject of an unresolved investigation by the Edmonton police about a suspicious fire in the warehouse of the Liberal minister from Edmonton.

That is what we are talking about, and his 50% business partner came before committee and lied. That is why we find ourselves before the House with a prima facie case of privilege and why he needs to come before the House. Questions need to be put to him about that because he lied.

We know there are rules in this place about parliamentary language, so let us quickly rewind. The Liberal minister has said that he was a journalist. It is printed in the media. It was looked into, and it is not true. He has said that he is indigenous. We have seen it in media reports, and again, what he said was not true. He has said that he was not involved in the ongoing operation of his business, but then, in the media and in court filings, we see more about the fraud that his business has perpetrated. We see that his claim is not true.

The Liberal minister claimed that it could not have been him who was communicating with Mr. Anderson, his 50% business partner, because he was at a cabinet retreat in Vancouver. There were text messages in which his business partner said that he was talking to Randy in Vancouver, but he claimed that “Randy” was an autocorrect, and that the dozens of messages including it were all autocorrects, but that is exactly where he was. When we brought him back before the committee, like in so many other examples in this Liberal scandal, he changed his story.

The Liberals talk about the Ethics Commissioner having cleared him. Only these guys would come in here to say that he has been investigated a bunch of times, but they have not been able to nail him yet, when that is because he keeps hiding the evidence. The first time, he said, “Oh, I turned over the phone records,” but it was not all of the phone records.

This Liberal minister from Edmonton was just asked over the last couple of days at a press conference whether the Edmonton police should investigate what has been revealed, and he did not say yes. Why would this Liberal not want the police to investigate if he has nothing to hide? He said that the Ethics Commissioner said that he is clear, but the Ethics Commissioner is not able to go to court to get a warrant and seize the bank records and the phone records that would demonstrate that this minister was doing the exact opposite of what he said he was doing. He was directly involved in the operation of his business, which, by the way, was bidding on and winning federal government contracts while he was sitting at the cabinet table. That is a fact, but he said that it did not happen. We cannot believe anything he says.

If it is not astonishing for Canadians that this Liberal minister and his business partner are sharing resources and their business is co-located with cocaine traffickers with hundreds of kilos of cocaine being involved in their trafficking enterprise, it might be astonishing that the Prime Minister and that Liberal parliamentary secretary will stand up and go to the barricades for him because they do not think he did anything wrong. That is how rotten the Liberal government has become. The corruption we have seen includes hundreds of millions of dollars from the green slush fund going to Liberal insiders, with 186 conflicts of interest, and $60 million for arrive scam, which was two jokers in a basement getting paid $20 million to do no IT work on that IT program. While one in four Canadians in this city and across the country are lining up at food banks, which are record numbers, they are lining the pockets of Liberal insiders.

The Prime Minister said in 2015 that there would be sunny ways. It sure is sunny for Liberal insiders and their well-connected friends, but for everybody else, it is stormy skies and a rocky ride. They do not know how they are going to feed themselves. They do not know how they are going to heat their homes this winter. Small business insolvencies are up 40% this year, to say nothing of the businesses that are just not opening because business owners cannot survive in this anti-competitive, inflationary environment with the Prime Minister raising his carbon tax on absolutely everything.

The Liberals are punishing Canadians for just living their lives, and it is all to finance their reckless spending, but all the money they take from Canadians is not enough. They have still devalued our currency with their money printing to pay for their schemes and pad the pockets of their friends.

The Prime Minister was twice found guilty of breaking Canada's ethics laws. His public safety minister broke the law. The Liberal Speaker, the former parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, broke the law. The trade minister broke the law. Those are all Liberals, and they all broke the law. It is a cabinet and caucus made up of serial lawbreakers, so it is no wonder that we learned today about the cocaine connection of that Liberal minister from Edmonton, a right hand of the Prime Minister, who is at the centre of more than a half-dozen fraud cases before the courts, and his business partner came before committee and lied. That minister said he had no communication with his business partner while he was serving in cabinet, but he was doing it from a cabinet retreat.

If we want the answers, and if we want the truth from these guys, we cannot believe that we are going to get it on the first crack. That is why this is so far beyond the Ethics Commissioner. There was a pointed question from a journalist who said that this Liberal minister was too much of a chicken to agree that the police should investigate and the police should take a look. These are who these Liberals, and the Liberal Prime Minister, after nine years, have in charge: fraudsters and scammers, fakes and phonies. They are disenfranchising the very people they claimed they would be the best at protecting.

That Liberal minister from Edmonton spent his weekend on an apology tour, now that he has been caught for claiming to be indigenous to win contracts for indigenous-run businesses, but he is only sorry that he got caught. That in and of itself should have every one of them over there standing up and calling for his resignation, but where are they on that? They are too blinded by their hope that, in the dying days, as crew members of the Titanic, they might be called up to the bridge to serve in the cabinet. They are thinking that could be them, so they better not say anything. They better not stand up for Canadians.

That is their legacy. That is that death rattle that we hear from the Liberal government. It is the sound of complicity from self-interested Liberals who are literally trying to change the law so that the election can be a week later, knowing that they are going to lose their seats, so they can get their pensions. Their preoccupation is looking after themselves and not looking after Canadians. It is a government of apologies and photo ops. That is what it has done for nine years, and Canadians are paying the price.

What have the Liberals not broken? They broke housing in our country. They broke our immigration system. It is unbelievable. They also broke our food banks. Food bank use has doubled. Food banks are running out of food. They have had to extend their hours. When 25% of Canadians are depending on food banks, and the unemployment rate is under 6.5%, that is an awful lot of people who are working and who have to rely on the food bank to feed themselves.

However, it is worse than that. I am hearing from food banks about folks who have to get to the food bank between shifts at their two jobs, which are not enough to pay the bills. People have to go from their first job to the food bank, get enough food to feed themselves and their families, and then go back to work at their next job. That is the legacy of the government after nine years.

Who is the government looking out for? It is not Canadians. It is not looking out for the Canadians who are struggling to afford a meal, heat their homes or buy their first home. The government is abandoning Canadians in their time of need. When we put forward common-sense solutions, such as taking the GST off of new home constructions under a million dollars, the government will not do it. Why is that? First of all, it would increase housing supply by about 30,000 homes a year and would save Canadians tens of thousands of dollars on the purchase of those homes. That is not what it is interested in.

It is a government of photo ops and apology, but man, does it have a lot to be sorry for. The government should not be telling Canadians that they should be sorry, which is what it likes to do. It should stand up to apologize because what we have seen is shameful. There is a minister of the Crown serving in the Liberal government whose business is connected to cocaine traffickers, and that connection has been while he was in cabinet. We are not talking about something from 20 years ago. He is currently involved. The only reason he is not an owner of the business anymore is that he collapsed his shares on the eve of his appearance at committee to testify about his involvement with these fraudsters and hucksters. It is obscene what goes on with the Liberals and the Liberal Prime Minister after nine years.

However, I have great news for Canadians. There is scandal, mismanagement and corruption, which we are seeing over there today, that Canadians have become used to and that has been normalized. It has them feeling as though there is no hope. Life was not like this before the Liberal Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberal government, and it will not be like it after them. There is no political opportunity that the Liberals would not take to help advantage themselves. It does not seem to faze them if it disenfranchises or disadvantages Canadians in the process.

We really have to wonder why, without having to drill down into any of the waste in the government programs they have put out, which just build more bureaucracy but do nothing to help Canadians, such as their supposed solutions for housing that have driven down housing starts and driven up bureaucracy, or the tens of millions of dollars on their failed confiscation with compensation scheme, their so-called gun buyback, to give people money for things the government never owned.

Meanwhile, we have police unions across the country, including the Toronto Police Association today, calling out the government and red circling the Liberals for the chaos and disorder on the streets. The Liberals will say that they are all Conservatives and Conservative lobby groups. The largest police association, the largest police union in the country, is calling them out, but they are so blinded by their own self-interest that they just cannot get out of their own way. How can they stand up today to defend the indefensible? The Liberal minister from Edmonton, who refuses to resign, will not stand up today to offer his resignation or an apology on the floor of the House of Commons, although Canadians deserve a lot more than that. He should have been fired. It seems like the Liberals do not have the moral clarity or the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing and make sure that the Liberal minister from Edmonton does not continue to serve in cabinet and represent their party and their Prime Minister.

The Liberals are going to have a rude awakening when Canadians get that carbon tax election because common-sense Conservatives will demonstrate our plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, especially the crimes of the criminals on the front bench and backbenches across the way.

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

Mr. Speaker, people will notice something at the very end of the member's speech, which I think speaks volumes. The member gets the gold star because he carried the four election platform issues. He knows the slogans. The Conservatives know the slogans. They have the bumper stickers. They are all ready to go. There is no doubt about that. The member gets the gold star for that and that is the premise as to why they want to speak.

No matter what the member tries to say, he wants to go back to the economy. I would love to debate the issue of the economy. I would love to talk about the issue of housing. It would be nice to talk about the fall economic statement or legislation, not to mention the opposition days. Instead of doing that, the Conservatives want to play this multi-million dollar game. The motion is very simple. It is to call an individual before the bar. The Conservatives moved an amendment. They will talk and talk. They will put up 100 speakers. The Liberals might put up two or three.

Why is the Conservative Party, besides wanting to get its gold stars, putting up so many speakers? Is it in order to prevent Canadians from being able to witness a House of Commons that is more functional? Are opposition members using their weight to demonstrate that they can paralyze the House of Commons?

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

Mr. Speaker, why does the Liberal member keep standing up and defending the indefensible? He is defending a member of his caucus, a member of cabinet, who came before committee and said one thing when the other thing was actually true. He said he was indigenous in order to win government contracts, but it was not true. His business is sharing business resources with cocaine traffickers. That is who the Liberal MP is standing up and defending. The member says they will have three people stand up. We know he is going to get up as often as he can to defend the indefensible.

I have to say the impact of the government's economic vandalism and mismanagement is directly related to the type of people it has put into these senior positions. When the experience is coming from cocaine trafficker-adjacent ministers, maybe the Liberals should take a good look in the mirror and have the Prime Minister fire that failure of a minister, or better yet, call a carbon tax election.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we just spent a week in our ridings, which is very good for us as elected officials. Our constituents are asking us what is happening in the House. My answer is simple: Nothing is happening.

The reason nothing is happening is not that the things we are debating here are unimportant. It is that members are using a parliamentary power to drag out a debate that is paralyzing the government. The government is also accusing the opposition of paralyzing it, but it is not doing anything to get itself out of that situation. Basically, this situation is convenient for the government.

As an elected member who truly values our role in democracy, I want to ask my colleague a question. The accusations that have been made against Randy are serious.

We are talking about the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages. What other mechanism could we use to get to the bottom of this issue, which has already been addressed by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics? Why is this issue being addressed as a question of privilege that is going to keep paralyzing the House for who knows how long?