Debates of Nov. 25th, 2024

Public Accounts

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Of course, Madam Speaker. I think most Canadians would be, as I am, amazed that a minister of the Crown could even have a company still operating that was getting government contracts.

I know when I signed on as a member of Parliament, I went through a pretty serious vetting process where they asked me about what interests not only I might have but my wife. My wife had a little contract with the federal government that she was just wrapping up. We had to report all that. They said things would be much harder if I was a minister, so to find out what has been going on with the member for Edmonton Centre has been a real eye-opener for me. I could not believe this was happening. It is another thing to add on the layer of the question around indigeneity. Yes, it has been amazing.

If the government would only act on this motion we are debating today, that someone cannot have a government job and do the same work by contract at the same time, then that would all be moot.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to go back to a particular aspect of my colleague's speech that caught my attention. If I understood correctly, he talked about problems at the border. If I am not mistaken, he cited the Eastern Townships region as an example. I represent a riding in the Eastern Townships.

Here is another example of mismanagement. I have to say that the Liberal government is as much at fault as the government in charge at the time of the border cuts, and I mean the Conservatives. Now, there is a new president-elect of the United States who has personally announced that he is going to deport people. Mayors along the border in my area are deeply concerned. They do not believe that this government is taking this threat seriously. Even in committee, my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia was told that the borders would be managed if and when a problem arises.

Can my colleague tell us how clear it is that now is the time for action, not for a reduction in hours at the border, as announced by the Liberal government?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

What I can say is that I am continually hearing about the issues around the CBSA and border crossings in my riding and how there has been an ongoing series of cuts. We are not protecting our borders more than we used to; we are protecting them less. They are shortening the hours these border crossings are open. That will only, I imagine, make people want to try to get around those crossings. This is the west. There are all sorts of little roads along the border with barbed wire fence gates on them.

What we need is, I think, a really serious look at how we are funding the CBSA to do the work it has to do to protect our borders, to control the traffic of goods back and forth across the border. We just are not taking that seriously.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up with my colleague because when it comes to not caring about our borders and keeping people safe, Stephen Harper and the former Conservative government that cut 1,100 jobs from border services should step forward. Stephen Harper cut the sniffer dog program. What do we need sniffer dogs for? Well, to smell out the drugs that are coming across the border. Stephen Harper did not care. He cut the undercover teams that were going in to deal with the international criminal gangs who were using our borders. Now that we are living with the results, with massive levels of gun violence and fentanyl gangs coming into our country, the Conservatives are lighting their hair on fire.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he thinks of this quote from Jean-Pierre Fortin, the national president of the Customs and Immigration Union, who stated that as a result of the Conservative plan, “More child pornography entering the country, more weapons, illegal drugs, will pass through our borders, not to mention terrorists and sexual predators and hardened criminals.”

Why does my colleague think Stephen Harper wanted to subject the Canadian people to that just to save a few bucks?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, when I visited the border crossing at Osoyoos, British Columbia and Oroville, Washington, one of the bigger border crossings in the country, agents were so excited because they had actually intercepted someone smuggling guns across the border, I think for the first time. They had a sniffer dog and all kinds of things, but because they are so short-staffed, they discovered this only because they were watching out for this particular individual; when he did cross the border, they paid special attention to him.

There are also five small border crossings in my riding. This is one of the big border crossings, but because it is so short-staffed, the agents just simply cannot give attention to these things. This is where the problem with guns is really coming into Canada: at our borders.

There are all sorts of other issues. The member mentioned drugs. There are also invasive mussels, which are a huge concern in the southern interior of British Columbia. These are things that we really have to pay attention to, and it costs money. I know that Conservatives do not like spending money, but this is what we have to do collectively to make our border safer.

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

Madam Speaker, it certainly appears to me that under the Liberal government, not only has the public sector bloomed by 40%, but the outsourcing and contracting have increased hugely as well. However, I do not know where the people are actually working, because the backlog in immigration is just as long as ever, and there are the same issues in my riding with CBSA's missing resources.

I definitely think that we need to take a look at no double dipping, but in addition to that, the allocation of resources in the government looks like it needs tuning. I wonder what the member thinks about that.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I totally agree. When we speak of immigration, I do not know what adjective to use, but most of my staff's time is spent on immigration issues simply because people have a right to get their visa or their permanent residency status worked on. However, it just seems to go into a void, and months pass without any apparent action.

Maybe it is a combination of managing how it is done and of simply needing more staff. If we stopped all the rampant contracting out for other projects, who knows how many staff we could hire and really train up to do the job on a daily basis, which would get things running smoothly again.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to this concurrence motion.

I cannot help but wonder why we are still stuck in this same place.

Conservatives continue to insist that we cannot get on with regular business of this House and discuss really important measures. For example, I would love to hear the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan's position on the recent announcements that were made by the government in terms of providing tax relief for all Canadians during a time of the year when people tend to be stretching the money they have.

We certainly know that, after inflation has come back down to where it is supposed to be, there are many households out there that are not realizing the decrease of inflation yet, and the measures that the government introduced last week are meant to address that. I really wish we could be talking about those, but we are not. Instead, we are in a constant filibuster from Conservatives and it does not even seem to be on one particular issue.

First, the Conservatives were filibustering on a privilege motion because, according to them, it was so incredibly important that we deal with this issue immediately. Then, at every opportunity they get, they introduce a concurrence motion, and it is a motion that basically prevents us from continuing on, even with the main item that they are using for the purpose of filibustering.

I am not surprised to see Conservatives act in that manner, but it certainly is surprising to see, at least from my perspective, the lengths to which the NDP and the Bloc Québécois members have allowed this to go on. There are really important things for us to be discussing, but instead, right now, we have been talking and will talk for three hours' worth of precious House time about a report that contains one entire sentence that was tabled back in March 2024, which was about nine months ago, and that is what we are doing here right now.

In any event, I will speak to the substance of this single-sentence motion. I would like to respond to the motion by the public accounts committee that, “calls on the government to prohibit any government employee from simultaneously working as an external contractor.”

Let me begin by saying the procurement of goods and services is a normal part of governing, and is essential to meeting the everyday needs of Canadians. Doing this right is crucial to maintaining public trust in government. Public servants play an important role in upholding core values of our democracy, such as accountability and trust, and the government has a framework of rules and regulations designed to guide the actions and behaviours of federal employees and safeguard the integrity of the public service.

In my time today, I would like to discuss some of the tools that pertain to the conflict of interest, particularly the Directive on Conflict of Interest, and the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector. To start, let us consider the Directive on Conflict of Interest. The directive sets out the requirements for persons employed by the government to help identify, prevent, report and resolve situations of “real, apparent or potential conflict of interest and conflict of duties”. The organizations are expected to “have the appropriate mechanisms in place to help individuals identify, report and...resolve real, apparent or potential conflict of interest” that may arise during and after their employment in the public service.

The objective of the directive is to uphold “the values and ethics of the public sector and the public interest.” With regard to public servants bidding on government contracts, the directive states that federal employees should refrain “from having private interests and engaging in outside employment...that may...impair their ability” to be objective and impartial. They must also advise their deputy head of outside employment and activities that could result in a real or perceived conflict of interest.

Public servants are also required to seek “approval of their deputy head before entering into a contractual agreement with the Government of Canada for which they are receiving any direct or indirect benefit or income”. Moreover, it is a condition of employment for public servants to fully and truthfully self-disclose any real, apparent or potential conflicts of interest.

All attestation information provided by employees is subject to verification and audit, and making a false statement would constitute a breach of the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector. The consequences for non-compliance are clearly outlined in the directive. It states that anyone employed in the federal public service who has not complied with its requirements “may be subject to...disciplinary measures up to and including termination of employment.”

I would now like to turn to the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector, which is another crucial piece of the government's oversight regime. The Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector sets out expected behaviours so that public servants at all levels have a common understanding of expected behaviours to demonstrate the values expressed in the code. Indeed, the code's core values, which are respect for democracy, respect for people, integrity, stewardship and excellence, are the pillars of a healthy and effective federal public service. They are the key to maintaining public trust.

The code's integrity values state:

Public Servants shall serve the public interest by:

3.1 Acting at all times with integrity and in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that may not be fully satisfied by simply acting within the law.

3.2 Never using their official roles to inappropriately obtain an advantage for themselves or to advantage or disadvantage others.

3.3 Taking all possible steps to prevent and resolve any real, apparent or potential conflicts of interest between their official responsibilities and their private affairs in favour of the public interest.

3.4 Acting in such a way as to maintain their employer’s trust.

In short, public servants must act in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny. What is more, adhering to the code “is a condition of employment” for all federal employees, “regardless of their level or position”, and any breach of its values or expected behaviours can give rise to disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal. By committing to the values of respect for democracy and respect for people, integrity, stewardship and excellence, and by adhering to the expected behaviours, public servants contribute to public confidence in the integrity of the public service as a whole.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that every organization in the federal public sector is also required to have its own code of conduct that is consistent with the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector. The organizational codes outline expected behaviours specific to each organization's mandate and work environment. Therefore, public servants are not only expected to abide by the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector and demonstrate the values in their actions and behaviour, but they must also abide by the organization's code of conduct.

I will mention the PSPC Code of Conduct for Procurement, which also plays a role here. It outlines clear expectations for vendors and subcontractors with respect to human rights, labour standards, conflict of interest and environmental responsibility. As a result, it is not only the government but also the vendors and subcontractors who are committed to upholding and promoting the ethical and environmental benchmarks that Canadians expect. In addition, the government's integrity regime holds suppliers accountable for misconduct, helps foster ethical business practices, ensures due process for suppliers and upholds the public trust in the procurement process.

The integrity of the federal public service is of utmost concern to the government. Public servants share a deep and common commitment to serving Canadians and maintaining public confidence in our democratic institutions. The comprehensive rules and policies in place are there to guide the ethical conduct of public servants and to ensure that those who act unethically are held to account.

As indicated in my read remarks, I concur with the sentiment of—

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

Who wrote them?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can assure the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan that it definitely was not the same Conservative staffer who writes every single speech that I get to listen to on a daily basis from Conservatives, and it certainly did not come from AI either.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

We know that Conservatives spend a lot of time speaking in the House. As a matter of fact—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would say to the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan that if he has anything to contribute, he should wait until the appropriate time to do so.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. There will be an opportunity for 10 minutes of questions and comments. He knows the rules and I hope he will abide by them.

I would also ask the hon. deputy government House leader not to engage with others who are making comments on the other side until the appropriate time.

The hon. deputy government House leader has the floor.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find it hard at times with respect to the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. He promised years ago to invite me to his podcast so we could debate there instead of the crosstalk like this, but he has yet to do that. I am still waiting for the invitation.

I find it very interesting, especially when the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan asked who wrote them. If he listened to the speeches we have been subjected to over the last 29 or 30 sitting days by the Conservatives, here is a fun fact: During this whole filibustering exercise that has been going on, over 190 speeches have been given in the House. At last count, 172 of them were by Conservatives. It is only Conservatives who are speaking and it is the same speech written over and again. Thank God AI came along when it did, because they are able to just ask AI to change up the speech a bit, to throw another twist into it, and they have another speech produced just like that, instantly. Then they come in here, like the robots they are, and read out that entire speech. I find it very fascinating—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member knows he cannot do indirectly what he is not allowed to do directly. I challenge him that the speeches that are generated by AI are not changed but the same dumbed-down repetition time after time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I think this is more a point of debate.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I can still hear some members, some of whom I have called out, still making comments. I would ask them to please hold off. We have a little over eight minutes to go before the hon. member finishes his speech. Then there will be an opportunity for 10 minutes of questions and comments.

The hon. deputy government House leader has the floor.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the point is that we are here today on the concurrence motion because of Conservatives' unwillingness to let us vote on a motion that they tabled. Just think about that for a second.

For anybody out there who might be watching the debate, who may have just happened to come across the channel and who is just watching for a second, I want to tell them about what has been going on in their House of Commons. Conservatives, 29 sitting days ago, introduced a motion calling on the House to send a particular order from the Speaker to committee so the committee could deal with it there, and then the committee would send it back to the House.

Rather than actually letting us vote on their motion, the Conservatives have put up over 170 speakers, of which there have been only approximately 190 in total. The remaining political parties have put the rest of the speakers up. The Conservatives have put up over 170 speakers, but that is not where their filibustering ends. They have also moved concurrence motion after concurrence motion.

Last week we were debating a concurrence motion on a report that had been tabled three years ago. We are now debating a one-sentence report from a committee that was tabled in March of this year. Conservatives are treating the House as though it were a joke. They are not letting us do the business we need to do.

I will conclude my remarks where I began them. There are so many things we could be talking about right now. We could be talking about meaningful ways to impact the lives of Canadians. We cannot do that because Conservatives are absolutely refusing to let us. I am sure Conservatives have a position on the government's legislation that it indicated last week it would be introducing, on GST and the worker rebate. I would love to hear what their position is.

I would love for the Conservatives to let the issue go to committee and let us actually do what they are asking us to do through their motion so we can debate the legislation that was just announced. I would love to know whether the Leader of the Opposition will free them and let them vote their conscience on it.

I would love to know whether their constituents support removing the GST for a two-month period, at a time when Canadians could particularly use it, at a time when a lot of small businesses and a lot of restaurants, in particular independent restaurants, which typically see downtime in January and February, could really benefit from removing the GST and seeing more people during those two particular months to help with their businesses and to help our economy.

I am sure that the vast majority of people, whatever number, as big or perhaps as small as it may be, who are watching the debate right now would rather listen to a debate on that subject than on a one-sentence report that was moved in a committee in March. The report must have been so important to Conservatives that they had to wait nine months before they could actually move a motion on it.

That is where we are right now. We are going to continue to listen to Conservatives, but there genuinely is a way out, which is for the Bloc or the NDP to say that maybe they have gone a little too far, that maybe they have done their bit, that they have pushed it.

I know that the NDP cares about the issue, in particular what the government announced last week. It was the leader of the NDP who insisted that he take credit for all of it the day before it was even introduced. He had to be the first one out of the gate. That is fine. The New Democrats wants to be the adults in the room and work with the government. Let them have the credit. They can go ahead and take it, but could we at least have a discussion about what is important to Canadians?

I know that the NDP, and the Bloc for that matter, knows that the procedural tactics mean absolutely nothing to Canadians, but both of those parties are just petrified of the perception that they might be working with the government. People come up to me in my community and ask what is going on in Parliament, saying that we were working and that it was working so well for so long, that we were getting stuff done here, getting new legislation, bringing in pharmacare, dental care and all of this stuff, and that now it is like nothing.

All I can really say is that, yes, we had a great relationship with the NDP. We were able to do stuff together. It is not a coincidence that when the New Democrats decided they did not want to play ball anymore and wanted to throw their bikes in the ditch and go home, which was back in August, suddenly this place became dysfunctional. That is when all this happened.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure my hon. colleague has been dumped many times in his life. I do not think he should be blaming people who are smart enough to leave that relationship for his problems.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is a point of debate debate, not a point of order.

The hon. deputy government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have had my heart broken many times. I can assure the member that this incident with the NDP does not measure up.

In conclusion—

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I just want clarification. When the breakup happened, was it at the time of a by-election?