Debates of Nov. 28th, 2024

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

While I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion 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.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we should have a recorded division.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #898

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

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from November 27 consideration of the motion, of the amendment as amended and of the amendment to the amendment.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the member for Winnipeg North talking about the security clearance, which would imply that only one person should know the names. We as Conservatives believe that every Canadian should know the names, just as every Liberal should be entitled to speak out.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North sure is excited. He must not like what we have to say. Just last week, when the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition left, we gave him rousing applause because he did a great job. The Prime Minister made a seal motion from his seat, as though implying we were all seals, although he talks about Conservatives being muzzled. Then we find out that the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek was told there would be consequences if he did not fall in line.

During question period yesterday, all we heard was why were those Conservatives being muzzled? We take pride in not being muzzled on this side of the House. We take pride in being able to ask questions.

The member for Winnipeg North asks just about every single question when there are people behind him who are more than capable of asking them. On this side of the House, we believe that people should be unmuzzled. We are free to speak in our caucus. We are free to speak our mind. This is not something the Liberals can claim.

The Liberals may say we are muzzled, yet that very day, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek said he could not vote for and serve his constituents as he wished because the Prime Minister wanted to muzzle him. I believe the term used was shackles.

The Liberals do not like shackles. They hate mandatory minimums. They have allowed people to serve sentences of house arrest for violence, gun crimes like extortion with a firearm and drive-by shootings. People can serve those all now on house arrest because of the Liberal government. We know the Liberals do not like shackles, but the Liberal caucus is shackled in so many ways. There are encumbrances everywhere on the government benches. We cannot list how many encumbrances there are over there. Who gets to speak?

I spoke about the member for Winnipeg North, who has asked just about every single question in this debate. I think there have been maybe two people. There have probably been a thousand questions asked in this debate. For the Liberal side, I have seen that member ask probably 99% of them. The government has 158 MPs, yet only one member has asked most of the questions. It used to be two members. It used to be the member for Winnipeg North as well as the member for Kingston and the Islands. I guess the member for Kingston and the Islands has lost his mojo after that whole defamation thing. However, now the member for Winnipeg North is the only one being allowed to speak, yet we are the ones who are being muzzled? We cannot write this stuff. The Liberal caucus is just so muzzled.

I am looking over at the Liberals and there is so much despondency. We see them when they are in question period and have to give their rousing applause. We can see the thought bubble above their heads, “Please put me in cabinet.” That is what is going through their heads. Only a select few have asked questions.

Then we will go back to what we saw two weeks ago, which was the crossing of arms by the 24 who will remain nameless. However, they are absolutely united. They are absolutely muzzled while they are united. Why can they not tell us they are not united? Because they are muzzled. They are shackled. Finally, somebody like the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek gets to tell us about the shackles.

We are talking about a privileged debate being led by one person from the Liberals. We are talking about massive fraud and the Liberals, particularly the member Winnipeg North, love to tell us that the Conservatives did this or that. As I said yesterday, it is like the ghost of Stephen Harper is hiding under somebody's bed. They do not want to focus on the last nine years of complete and utter failure. The member keeps going on with his wink and nudge conspiracy theories as to what happened in the past with a security clearance. Never mind what happened with a reporter in the Kootenays. They will leave that one alone because they do not want to talk about that. I wonder if it would come up in a security clearance.

In any event—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Maybe it was a bad date, who knows.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, did you hear what the member for Winnipeg North just said, that maybe it was a bad date? I am not usually speechless, but I am now.

We can say these things in jest, but somebody said that they were groped by the Prime Minister and the member for Winnipeg North just said that “Maybe it was a bad date.”

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not mind the member quoting me, but I was referring to his leader, not the Prime Minister.

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

This falls into debate again. I want to caution members that when they accuse each other of doing things, it sometimes causes a little disorder in the House.

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a year in review, but let us do a little speech in review. I said something, called out the member for Winnipeg North for talking about his conspiracy theories of what was in the background and then asked why we were not talking about things in the background of the Prime Minister, like the reporter in the Kootenays. In response, the member for Winnipeg North said that maybe it was just a bad date. Then he stands and says that this is not what he meant. Canadians are not stupid, the Speaker is not stupid and I think the Liberals know, but there might be consequences if they speak out. In fact, the member should stand and apologize. I will stand here for five seconds and let him do that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if that is the way the member interpreted it, and I believe he is being honest, then I would apologize, but that is not what I was referring to; I was referring to his leader.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I thank member for doing the right thing, Mr. Speaker. I am glad the Liberals are allowed to at least apologize when they do wrong, because we know they are not allowed to speak their mind.

We have a $400-million fraud. In question period, we see the Liberals hang their heads in shame when people say this, especially on the backbenches. The Prime Minister can show as much fight as he wants. He will do his thing, where he points at the ground and says that Liberals will not stand for that. Clearly, they do not stand for much when it comes to their MPs speaking out. We know now that Liberal MPs cannot disagree on things. Frankly, reasonable people can disagree on the GST holiday and the GST cheques. That is something on which reasonable people can disagree, and it is obvious that reasonable people can disagree on this, yet the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek disagrees and is told there will be consequences.

How many times have the Conservatives spoken up? On this side of the House, we are allowed to talk. This goes for the NDP and the Bloc as well. Every single one of their members is free to stand up and speak up. On this side of the House, we compete for who gets to ask questions. Often, two or three Conservatives will stand when it is time to ask questions. What do we see on that side of the House? We see the member for Winnipeg North consistently stand and ask questions when he has capable people behind him.

Just last week, I called him out. I told the member that there were three strong women behind him and asked why they did not get to ask a question for the government. Are they muzzled as well? Why is that? I remember when Candice Bergen was here as interim Conservative leader. She noted that there were four strong, capable women behind him and she asked the member for Winnipeg North why they did not get to ask a question. Perhaps it is because of the shackles. Perhaps it is because of the muzzling. This is after nine years of the government. It is so tired that it expects one person to carry all the baggage, all the weight and wink to all the conspiracy theorists.

As Conservatives, we will not stand for it. The Liberals should hand over the documents and release the names. Let us bring it home.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the unmuzzled member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, I would add. I would ask my hon. colleague if he is convinced that the entire Conservative caucus was willing to stiff Ukraine when the vote came up on the free trade agreement. Not once, not twice, but maybe three or four times they all voted against that. Even though I know the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is a very strong supporter of Ukraine, he was bullied into voting against it.

Does the hon. member believe that everybody in the Conservative caucus voted against that based on their own feelings or based on the influence of their leader?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do commend the member for staying off social media for a little while. I have not had as much fun with his social media posts of late.

I am happy to answer the question. The Conservatives are united, and we voted based on a carbon tax. If we want to get into Ukraine, where are the weapons that the member's leader promised? Where was that member, and all those members, when a turbine was sent back to Russia for repair, something that would have stymied the Russian economy? That member has no moral high ground on Ukraine to talk about this. I will always stand in support of Ukraine, as will Conservatives, as will the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not that often that I would rise and thank the Prime Minister, but he came to my riding, to East Gwillimbury, with the member for Newmarket—Aurora. He could not even do an announcement in a Liberal riding. He had to set-up a mock grocery store above a grocery store because he could not do an announcement in the store. Every time he comes to my riding, I get so many lawn sign requests, and I thank him for that. I would love to have him back again, but I wonder if my colleague could comment on this tax trick for Canadians.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member is here and not in Lake Simcoe right now. I would be remiss if I did not ask him where his rural top-up is, because he is often saying this in the House.

On the tax trick, the Liberals like temporary relief; the Conservatives believe in permanent relief. That is why we will axe the tax. The Liberals want to take the GST off a small number of things for a small amount of time. As a Conservative government, we would take that Liberal-proposed 61¢-a-litre carbon tax off permanently.

Canadians have a choice. We can have a carbon tax election where they decide whether we take off the GST for a couple of months on a few things or whether we take off 61¢-a-litre permanently. That is the choice. The government should call a carbon tax election and let Canadians decide. In the meantime, the government should release the names.

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

Mr. Speaker. my hon. friend, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, spoke in error in saying that to request all opposition party leaders fulfill their obligations in applying for top secret security clearance has the implication that only one person then knows what potential foreign influence has affected current sitting members of Parliament. As someone who has top secret security clearance, I remain baffled that the leader of the official opposition has declined to apply for such.

I ask my hon. colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo to reflect on what he said and correct the record of his own statements. Clearly, a federal party opposition leader having top secret security clearance does not mean that only one person knows the top secret information. I would also ask him to consider whether he really means that top secret information that is illegally shared under our federal legislation should be sent to all Canadians.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I spoke in error. The point I was trying to make is that the government is implying that only one member of the Conservative Party should see the names and then should be muzzled. We, as Conservatives, will not be muzzled.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is talking about top secret information. That is how the information was derived. It is what we call evidence. We are not talking about that. We are saying that, if there are people in the House who have been compromised to such a degree that NSICOP has put it in a report and that our intelligence authorities have said that there are issues, then why is it that Canadians should be going to the ballot box without knowing whether the person's name they are putting an X beside may be compromised? That is a cloud over every single member of the House until those names are released.

With all due respect to my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, I will not retract a thing; I stand by what I said. There should be more than one member of the Conservative Party getting those names because every single Canadian should have those names before the next election.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the comment from my colleague from the Green Party. Even if the Leader of the official opposition did not want to get the names from the report, which very clearly talked about the fact that the Conservative Party leadership race was compromised, would he not want to get his security clearance anyway so that Canadians do not feel that he is hiding something from them? That is my point.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, we believe in acting. We do not believe in being silenced. When we act, we will act decisively to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. That is something Conservatives are committed to doing. That is exactly how we will act. We will not be muzzled in doing those things. Unlike the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, we are entitled to speak out and to say these things. When we get information that is of interest to Canadians, we will speak out about it. The members of His Majesty's loyal opposition will not be silenced.