Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2024

Procedure and House Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 104 and Standing Order 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 72nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, entitled “Pilot Project to Include Inuit Languages on Federal Election Ballots in Nunavut”.

Canada Disability Benefit Act

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-422, An Act to amend the Canada Disability Benefit Act.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing a bill to protect the Canada disability benefit, and the persons who will receive it, from clawbacks. I thank the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for seconding it and for the work that she does in her community for persons with disabilities.

People with disabilities living in poverty experience the cruelty of clawbacks first-hand. Whenever they get the slightest increase in income, their critical government benefits are reduced. The skimming of benefits that they are entitled to pushes them farther behind. The era of perpetuating poverty through the Liberals' cruel and callous clawbacks, and those of the Conservatives before them, has to end. The negative impacts go farther than just bad economic policy. It is bad social policy too. People with disabilities are prevented from having a live-in relationship, marrying, leaving an abusive relationship or even taking on roommates; if they do, they risk losing their critical benefits.

With my bill, in relation to the Canada disability benefit, which is already woefully inadequate, the government can amend and modernize the policy to bring in a new era of disability benefits that empowers people instead of punishing them.

In closing, I raise my hands to the disability community and countless advocates who have continued to raise the issue. Again, I call on the government to do what is right. It should adopt the bill, fix this historical wrong and make sure that people with disabilities can live the life they choose.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, presented on Monday, November 25, be concurred in.

It is my honour to stand here today. I will be sharing my time with the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

The Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs wants to embark on a study to see the appearance of the member of Parliament for Edmonton Centre. The report states:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, November 21, 2024, your committee has agreed to report the following:

That the committee report to the House that the MP for Edmonton Centre appear before the committee for two hours independently by Friday, December 6, 2024, immediately following the completion and reporting back of C-61 to the House, and that the report is tabled by the Chair in the House as soon as possible and no later than Monday, November 25, 2024.

The reason we are going through this important report is that the former minister, the member for Edmonton Centre, needs to come clean about his actions. We have all heard about the other Randy story, as GHI, a company he co-owned, was bidding on government contracts. He claimed he was not, but it came out that he actually was. He also claimed to be of indigenous heritage when he is not. Moreover, his company was falsely bidding on indigenous contracts, but his company is not indigenous.

A recent article in the news states:

Alberta MP [from Edmonton Centre] has resigned from cabinet amid allegations about his business dealings and criticism of his shifting claims about his Indigenous ancestry.

“The prime minister and [the MP for Edmonton Centre] have agreed that [the MP] will step away from cabinet effective immediately. [The MP for Edmonton Centre] will focus on clearing the allegations made against him,” a spokesperson for [the] Prime Minister...said in a statement.

This is why it is so important that the former minister appear at the INAN committee. Previous to that, he was scheduled to appear as minister. The NDP-Liberal government has tried to say that, since he is no longer a sitting minister, he does not need to appear at committee to answer the allegations made against him.

That is simply unacceptable. It does not change that he was a long-serving member of the corrupt NDP-Liberal government and that there are three very significant issues he needs to answer for to the Canadian public, and most of all, to indigenous communities. One thing colleagues of mine in the House have really highlighted is that impersonating an indigenous person or an indigenous company is a severe offence. It is fraudulent, and it is something that is just simply not acceptable for anybody in Canada, let alone a sitting minister of the NDP-Liberal government.

We have also heard that the NDP-Liberals are trying to do something to obfuscate, and that is to have the former minister appear but do it with all the current and relevant ministers to INAN at the same time. That would swamp the meeting, with three ministers and the member for Edmonton Centre appearing all at once. We are asking and calling on the former minister to appear individually to answer questions on what he is done. Simply put, the amount of time he will have at committee will be well used to appear individually, at least for an hour, if not longer, to try to answer some of the allegations made against him.

It is a concern for Canadians across the country. We spoke about the green slush fund before and this corruption within the front benches. Again, it is not just the odd allegation here and there. It is corruption at the highest level from sitting ministers of the government. It was only recently, just a few weeks ago, that the former minister was cut loose, as the news article stated. He held on for many months. The Prime Minister kept him in his spot, regardless of the allegations. More allegations started to pop up as a result, and it got even worse as the member was allowed to remain in his minister's chair. I give credit to my colleagues for putting pressure on the former minister. It was said that the Prime Minister asked him to step down or resign, or however anyone wants to phrase it. It was really after the opposition, the Conservatives on this side, caused so much pressure with the Prime Minister and Canadians across the country.

It is even reflected in the polls. When we look at the polls across the country, the Liberals and the NDP are really struggling because of these kinds of allegations.

It is not as though they deal with allegations quickly. They deal with them after months and months of pressure, of people watching videos on YouTube and social media, asking why the minister is still sitting when he is under this cloud of allegations and suspicion around some pretty significant issues. Impersonating an indigenous person in Canada, and doing so as a sitting minister, is really beyond the pale.

This is why it is necessary for the member for Edmonton Centre to come to committee. He needs to give his responses to the questions from our members. This needs to happen with a full meeting, not as an attachment with a bunch of other ministers there getting asked questions at the same time. We are asking for him to appear as an individual.

Canadians and indigenous people across the country deserve to have him answer for what he has done and maybe clarify what he was trying to do with what ended up happening, what the allegations are. He has spoken many times in the House, and he has never been able to get out of the shadow of these allegations. As I said before, the cloud has gotten darker over him, whether in terms of the other Randy, GHI as a co-owned company or bidding on government contracts as a sitting minister.

We just spoke about it at length for 20 minutes. The sitting Minister of Environment was doing the exact same thing. It is a sad state of affairs when this acceptable corruption is in the front benches of the NDP-Liberals today. We look forward to getting a chance to ask some tough questions of the former minister. It was the Prime Minister who said, “sunny ways.” I think we all remember that from 2015. The best thing for integrity of the system is to shine a light, to have no secrets. This was the Prime Minister's saying. He talks about slogans of ours; “sunny ways” was his slogan. Where has that gone today? All we have is government cover-up after cover-up.

The Speaker is even challenging the government to produce unredacted documents to the green slush fund. It is not just that we are trying to shine a light on some of these accusations of a current minister and the current Prime Minister, but it needs to actually see the light of day. We need to see the minister in the INAN committee. He needs to answer for the serious allegations against him. I think indigenous people across the country and Canadians at large are expecting that.

How could a sitting minister so obviously do things that are fraudulent and keep being able to do so for as long as he was? It was only after relentless pressure from the Conservative Party on this side, as well as facts that just kept churning up as time went on that, finally, as the article said, “The prime minister and the MP [for Edmonton Centre] agreed that [the MP] will step away from cabinet effective immediately.”

It is a challenge for him to actually do this. In the article, it said the MP from Edmonton Centre “will focus on clearing the allegations made against him”, as “a spokesperson for [the] Prime Minister...said in a statement”. Here is a great opportunity to do exactly that as an individual: clearing the allegations against him.

Speaker's Ruling—Designation of Supply Days

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on November 21, 2024, by the member for La Prairie regarding the designation of the final four supply days for the period ending on December 10, 2024.

In his point of order, the member for La Prairie asked whether the Chair would intervene to designate the remaining opposition days in the hypothetical case that the two questions of privilege before the House remain under consideration through the end of the current supply period. The member said that the Standing Orders provide for four more opposition days this fall and that, in the past, the Chair has designated days to meet the requirements of the Standing Orders. He also raised the possibility of temporarily setting aside the questions of privilege if it is necessary for the making of appropriations.

In my statement of November 21, 2024, on the same topic, I encouraged the House leaders to discuss a solution that would enable the House to reconcile these various responsibilities. The discussions do not seem to have been productive. Although the government has designated three opposition days, including today's, the Chair notes that the House has been unable to take up the business of supply at the required time. The House remains in the situation described by the member for La Prairie.

The House is solely responsible for granting supplies to the Crown, as provided by Standing Order 80(1). To that end, at the start of each session, it establishes a continuing order of the day for the consideration of supply. That order, as House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, explains at page 838, “remains on the agenda as an item of Government Orders and may be taken up at any time at the government’s discretion.”

In other words, the designation of the days allotted to the business of supply is normally a prerogative of the government, and this business is considered during Government Orders.

The House executes its supply responsibilities through a very specific mechanism, which is described in Standing Order 81. Adopting one or more appropriations bills granting sums to defray charges and expenses of the federal public administration is the final step of that process. For the current supply period, such a bill must be adopted by December 10. Under Standing Order 81(17), the Chair is required, no later than the last day of this period, to interrupt proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of these appropriations.

That said, one principle of our parliamentary government is that members have the right to air grievances before considering the government's financial requirements. There exists a vital balance between grievances and supply, the former being considered on supply days. What is to be done if the government is unable to designate those days?

The member for La Prairie raised the Chair's role in this situation by citing an important precedent. On Thursday, March 22, 1990, a dispute between the government and the opposition prevented the last two opposition days that could be allotted for the supply period ending on March 26 from being designated. Consequently, on that day, Speaker Fraser designated Friday, March 23, and Monday, March 26, 1990, as opposition days. In a ruling rendered on March 26, 1990, on page 9759 of the Debates, he explained, and I quote:

The Standing Orders list the number of allotted days there will be in each supply period and where the Government has failed to designate sufficient days to meet the requirements of the Standing Orders, by attrition those days left in the period must become allotted days, when no other alternative is possible in order to comply with the Standing Orders.... [H]ence Friday and today had to become opposition days, whether specifically designated by the Government or not.

However, the House was not considering questions of privilege when Speaker Fraser had to rule on the issue.

In the statement of November 21, 2024, the Chair outlined the House's responsibility to grant supplies, in accordance with the specific mechanisms provided by the Standing Orders. The Chair also remarked that a privilege motion must take priority over all other orders of the day; still, this practice is not absolute. As we have seen on a few occasions this fall, the House may, through a special order or under a unique specific standing order, require a particular action to be taken at a particular time. For example, pursuant to Standing Order 66, the House resumed consideration of motions to concur in committee reports after debate on them had been adjourned, even though these motions were orders of the day.

In the same vein, the continuing order of the day for supply enables, and in fact the Standing Orders require, the House to dispose of supply matters by December 10, 2024. Despite the questions of privilege before the House, the Chair must conclude that the provisions of the Standing Orders governing the consideration of supply remain in effect. The Chair further concludes that the balance between the allotted days and the adoption of appropriations must be maintained and that, as a result, the remaining supply days must take place.

Since four supply days are yet to be designated and 48 hours’ notice is required for opposition motions, unless the House decides otherwise, the Chair declares that the last four sitting days in the current period—namely, Thursday, December 5, Friday, December 6, Monday, December 9, and Tuesday, December 10, 2024—will be allotted days.

During the sittings of Thursday, December 5; Friday, December 6; and Tuesday, December 10, consideration of the questions of privilege under Orders of the Day will resume once the House has finished the debates on the business of supply, if possible.

As for the sitting of Monday, December 9, the questions of privilege will be taken up at the start of the sitting and considered until Orders of the Day are called at noon.

I thank all members for their attention.

The House resumed 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

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

Mr. Speaker, the debate has been going on for quite some time, and I think we have asked every possible question that can be asked.

In relation to the news we heard today regarding foreign interference and the Conservative leadership campaign in particular, we heard something quite interesting, which was in regard to the member for Calgary Nose Hill and whether or not she was approached by individuals, in particular foreign individuals who were not Canadian citizens, to influence her position on the campaign.

My question for the member is this: Is he aware that just recently in the industry committee, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who was at the committee, once approached by the CBC, immediately left the room, leaving all of her stuff on the table, and is now back in her office participating in the meeting remotely? Does the member not think it would be best for her to confront the situation and to answer honestly about whether or not she was approached by individuals regarding interference in the leadership race that elected the current Leader of the Opposition?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, for Canadians out there, I will say that the motion we are talking about today is to have the former NDP-Liberal minister, who had to resign in shame, appear at the INAN committee to answer for the issues he has really been a part of, to clear his name.

The article states that the MP for Edmonton Centre “‘will focus on clearing the allegations made against him,’ a spokesperson for [the] Prime Minister...said in a statement.” Once again the Liberals are trying to change the channel on their scandal-ridden government.

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

Madam Speaker, the company of the disgraced member for Edmonton Centre applied fraudulently for two government contracts, representing itself as a wholly indigenous-owned company when that was not true, in a disgraceful effort to steal contracts from legitimate indigenous businesses.

The Prime Minister was aware that the minister did that, yet for days he defended him. It was only when the Edmonton Police announced it was launching a criminal investigation that the minister was finally bounced from cabinet. What does that say about the low ethical standards set by the Prime Minister? Could his reluctance to fire the member for Edmonton Centre from cabinet have anything to do with the fact that, like the member for Edmonton Centre, the Prime Minister is a cultural appropriator?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question and is relevant to the subject at hand. For the Canadians watching out there, that is what a proper question to somebody across the way looks like. Instead of the Liberals' trying to obfuscate and cover up their scandals, there is a great question.

The member is very aware of the scandal-ridden government, the green slush fund and the many efforts the government has made to cover up its scandals and corruption et cetera. I know it is alarming for most Canadians, and for us as well, how long it took the Prime Minister. The minister was still sitting on the front benches for weeks under the dark clouds of the allegations, and it just kept getting worse.

There was a shift in the last week though. Normally the NDP-Liberals, when they do not want their minister to answer for something that is corrupt, they have somebody else answer the question for them. The minister had to answer the questions himself, which showed there was some erosion in the relationship between the Prime Minister and the particular minister.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his intervention, because something needed to be said about this issue that has brought shame on this Parliament. I would like to commend him, as he is a very active member of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

I am wondering how first nations are reacting to seeing a prominent government member misusing indigenous identity to gain access to contracts. It is quite scandalous. I would like to hear more from my colleague about the indigenous point of view. We know that at least 5% of federal contracts are awarded to indigenous businesses to promote their economy. It is also a question of resilience. However, at the end of the day, these contracts are given to non-indigenous businesses.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member from the Bloc is also a sitting member of the INAN committee.

I can tell him how first nations feel in my community; they feel absolutely disgusted by former actions of the current Prime Minister and the latest actions to shield a former minister who has been fraudulent in his claims about being indigenous. It is shameful, and in the next election, they are voting Conservative.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, today, I rise in the House of Commons to address a matter that has serious implications for public trust, accountability and the integrity of our democratic institutions. It is a matter that speaks to the very principles that Canadians hold dear, the principles of transparency, honesty and the fair application of our laws.

This is an issue that is both deeply troubling and critically important to the future of our nation. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of fairness and the actions we expect from those in power.

We live in a country that prides itself on its commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples. We recognize that this is a journey, a process of healing, understanding and building trust between indigenous communities and the Canadian government. However, this process is only meaningful when it is rooted in honesty and respect.

The issue at hand is the controversial conduct surrounding the former minister of employment, the member for Edmonton Centre, and his past business dealings, specifically his connection to Global Health Imports, a company he co-owned. This matter not only raises questions about potential conflicts of interest, but it also brings to the forefront serious concerns regarding the manipulation of indigenous business procurement programs for personal and political gain.

This issue calls into question both the ethical standards expected of our public officials and the integrity of programs designed to benefit indigenous entrepreneurs and communities.

We are faced with a troubling situation in which an individual, a public servant no less, is accused of exploiting the very tools that were meant to uplift and empower indigenous communities for personal advantage. The procurement strategy for indigenous businesses was established by the government to ensure that indigenous communities could participate meaningfully in federal contracting opportunities, and yet we are now confronted with the possibility that this program is being misused by individuals with questionable motives.

The member for Edmonton Centre has long portrayed himself as an ally of indigenous communities and, at times, a person of indigenous descent. However, his claims about his heritage have shifted dramatically over time, raising serious questions about the sincerity and accuracy of his statements. In 2017, the member referred to himself as non-status adopted Cree, tracing his ancestry to his great-grandmother, who he claimed was Cree. This claim was repeated in Parliament, where he spoke proudly of his heritage as part of his personal narrative.

However, just a few years later, the member changed his story. In an interview in 2021, he stated that he was a white, cisgender member of the community. He publicly distanced himself from any indigenous identity, acknowledging instead that his heritage was tied to a status Métis family member through adoption. The stark shift was quite sudden, and the timing of these changes raises questions about his true understanding of his heritage.

The member for Edmonton Centre, along with his former business partner, Stephen Anderson, co-founded Global Health Imports at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The company initially focused on distributing personal protective equipment, such as masks, gloves and face shields. It was, at the time, a business venture that appeared to be in line with the urgent needs of the day, as the global health crisis required swift and wide-ranging action.

However, the issue arose when GHI began to identify itself as a wholly indigenous-owned business in federal procurement bids, claims that were made to gain access to preferential treatment under Canada's indigenous procurement programs. These claims were made even though neither the member nor Anderson appeared to have verifiable indigenous heritage that met the strict criteria for participation in the PSIB.

While the government's procurement strategy allows for preferential treatment to companies that are generally genuinely indigenous-owned, it requires that such companies meet clear criteria, such as being at least 51% owned by indigenous individuals. As it turned out, neither the member for Edmonton Centre nor Stephen Anderson could demonstrate they actually met that requirement.

Global Health Imports, as we all know, was never registered on the official list of eligible indigenous businesses. Furthermore, neither the member nor Anderson ever substantiated their indigenous heritage when questioned.

The core of the issue is the deliberate misrepresentation of GHI's ownership. By falsely claiming to be indigenous-owned, the owner sought to leverage government programs meant for indigenous people, diverting opportunities and funds from businesses that genuinely meet the criteria. This raises significant questions about the truthfulness of the claims made by the member for Edmonton Centre and the appearance of a deliberate attempt to misappropriate federal resources, especially given that those claims were central to securing lucrative government contracts.

The government has been unequivocal about the need for companies to prove their status before accessing these very programs and yet there appears to be no official follow-up or verification by the Minister of Indigenous Services or her department in this case. The reality is that GHI did not meet the criteria to qualify for indigenous procurement programs. This is not just a matter of a failed business bid; this is a matter of ethical conduct. This is about whether the rules governing indigenous procurement are being followed and whether those who falsely claim indigenous identity are allowed to exploit the very programs meant to support indigenous businesses.

Indigenous leaders, such as Shannin Metatawabin, the CEO of the National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association, have voiced their concerns about this kind of behaviour. He stated that these incidents are symptomatic of broader problems within the PSIB, noting that fraudulent claims of misrepresentation are undermining the program and ultimately harming the various communities the PSIB is meant to support. This lack of transparency and accountability is quite troubling. Arthur Schafer, the director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba, has argued that in order for the programs like the PSIB to remain effective, the government must hold individuals accountable when they misrepresent themselves as indigenous or try to exploit these programs for personal gain.

As we move forward, there are several lessons we must learn from this controversy. First, we must demand greater transparency from public officials, in particular when they are involved in decisions that affect vulnerable communities. Second, we must strengthen the safeguards in place to prevent the exploitation of procurement programs meant for indigenous businesses. The public must have confidence that all elected officials are held to the highest standard of ethical conduct and that means an independent, thorough investigation into the member for Edmonton Centre's actions and his potential breaches of the Conflict of Interest Act. We must have transparency into whether his financial interests in GHI influenced the awarding of government contracts and whether any rules were broken in that process. It means we must also examine and even re-examine the strength of our ethics laws and those covering indigenous peoples, including the indigenous procurement programs, and ensure that these programs are not abused by officials looking to profit at the expense of indigenous communities. If they are, we need to know what measures we can take to strengthen our systems, close those loopholes and ensure that these programs are used for that intended purpose to empower and uplift indigenous peoples, not enrich the privileged few.

We cannot ignore these concerns. The very integrity of our democratic institutions depends on the people who hold positions of power living up to the highest ethical standards. It is time for the member for Edmonton Centre to answer for his actions and for the government to take the necessary steps to ensure that this type of behaviour is not tolerated in the future. Of course, as we look into the broader implications of the case, we must ask ourselves how many other cases like this are out there. How many more individuals are attempting to pass themselves off as indigenous to access resources and advantages that should be reserved for the very communities we are striving to support?

As I wrap up I would like to move a motion, seconded by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following: "the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs presented to the House of Monday, November 25, 2024, be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the committee for further consideration, with instruction that it report back to the House no later than Monday January 27, 2025, on whether the Member for Edmonton Centre, who was the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages when the House adopted an order on Tuesday, November 19, 2024, requiring his attendance before that committee, has appeared in conformity with that order.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, no one is surprised that the Conservatives continue this multi-million dollar, self-serving game. They have pulled out yet another concurrence report, and then they are going to send the report back to committee. There is nothing new there. That is the tactic that they have been using now for weeks, and I will get the opportunity to expand on that.

However, the question I have for the member is: Why is the Conservative Party so focused on character assassination more than on the needs of Canadians?

We have seen this illustrated all of the time. A good example of that would be when that very member decided to vote against giving a GST holiday for taxpayers in Canada even though, as a political entity, the Conservatives like to give the false impression that they want to cut taxes.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wrote that down: “A multi-million dollar, self-serving” venture. I would argue that is exactly what the member for Edmonton Centre tried to do.

The member for Edmonton Centre and the company he co-owned checked a box claiming to be wholly indigenous-owned, thereby bidding on a contract reserved for indigenous-owned businesses. The hypocrisy is unbelievable here. We have a minister who had no problem trying to push down legitimate indigenous-owned businesses to try to secure and enrich himself; it is unbelievable.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I are both vice-chairs of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. I thank him for his intervention.

I would like to know whether the amendment he just moved has anything to do with the fact that the Liberals tried to pull a fast one on us in committee. We wanted the official languages minister to appear and answer the committee's questions. At the time, the member for Edmonton Centre was that minister. However, the Liberals tried to send us the new Minister of Official Languages, the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe. Is today's motion and the time being taken up in Parliament an indication of the same Liberal manoeuvring?

I have a second question. In his speech, my colleague talked about the penalties that should be imposed on the member for Edmonton Centre. I would like my colleague to elaborate on that. What consequences should the member face, apart from being humiliated in the House and bringing shame to his political party?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from the Bloc across the way for the question and for his work on the indigenous and northern affairs committee.

In short, yes it is. As the member correctly pointed out in his question, the Liberals tried to play games on the committee and tried to ensure that it was the new, interim minister for employment covering for the member for Edmonton Centre who was going to actually appear before committee. Clearly, that was not the intent of the motion. The intent of the motion is to get the member for Edmonton Centre and ensure, order him, if you will, to appear before committee.

In terms of what punishments he should face, I guess that is up to different agencies. I would hope that there is enough shame brought to him and the Liberal Party that indigenous people have second thoughts about voting for Liberals. Also, hopefully he decides that he is not ready to run in the next election.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy that I have a chance to stand up today, because I do have some questions that I am hoping the member can shed some light on.

We know that the Conservatives have been calling for an election for about six months now. On Friday, there was a non-confidence vote that was put forward by the Conservatives, which was attacking the leader of the NDP. When the Conservatives were asked to suspend the question of privilege by the government House leader to get unanimous consent to be able to debate this exact non-confidence motion that they put forward, they said no.

Perhaps the member could clarify, as I think Canadians are curious. What is going on? Where is the logic behind saying “no” to the exact motion that the Conservatives put forward to see an outcome that they are pushing for?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, that came from the party that not once, not twice, but multiple times voted confidence in the government, prolonging the Liberal power grab that we continue to see. However, members need not worry. There will be another motion very soon. The member opposite does not need to worry.

However, right now our focus is on getting to the bottom of what the member for Edmonton Centre may or may not have done with his company applying for government contracts and claiming to be wholly indigenous-owned.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to try to explain, as best as I can, why we are having this debate this afternoon. It is quite unfortunate, but the Conservatives have been focused on character assassination, even back 10 years ago when the leader of the Liberal Party was first elected as leader. Absolutely nothing has changed over the last 10-plus years. They identify an individual and then attack the very character of that person.

In the many years that I have known the member from Edmonton Centre, I never had him come up to me in any fashion whatsoever to try to give any sort of an impression that he was indigenous himself. I really look at a lot of the things the Conservatives do as ways to try to discredit individuals inside the chamber. Quite frankly, it is at a very great cost. I often say, which Hansard will clearly demonstrate, that over the years, the Conservative Party has focused on destroying the characters of elected officials in the House of Commons. Meanwhile, we have a Prime Minister and a government that continue to be focused on Canadians.

While Conservatives try to sidestep important issues and bring in character assassinations, as a government, we have been focused on Canadians to ensure they are a part of the solution in building a stronger, healthier economy. We are focusing in on Canada's middle class, and those aspiring to be a part of it, while focusing on ensuring that we have an economy that works for all Canadians. That has been the government's focus for years.

The type of response we get from members of the Conservative Party is for them to consistently attack individuals. There might be the odd one that steps up to the plate to say something that is a little bit more constructive, but that is discouraged in the Conservative caucus. There are Conservative MPs on the other side who have made it very clear that they do not have a choice.

There are people in the Conservative leader's office who actually follow members, who stalk them to see what they are saying. That made national news last week with a story about the degree to which Conservative MPs are being stalked within their own caucus. They get stars if they do something right, and they get some of those stars taken away if they do something wrong. For example, if they talk to Liberal members of Parliament, that is a bad thing, according to the Conservative caucus and their new rules.

If Conservative members want to get a star, well, they can maybe attack the character of someone, just like what we are witnessing today. By far, the best way to get those simple stars is to repeat the slogans. Today, we can see how many times members stood up to say their slogans. That is because it is encouraged. They are told that they will get stars if they do that. There are Conservative members who are talking about how freedom within the caucus has become scarcer as a direct result of their leader. If they want to talk about character assassination, I would like to share some thoughts about that with regarding the leader of the Conservative Party that Canadians should be aware of.

This multi-million dollar, self-serving game the Conservatives are playing today, and have been playing for the last six weeks on the floor of the House of Commons, has not only a substantive financial cost, but also a very negative impact on the legislative agenda. We would have seen legislation to protect children from online predators, legislation to protect sexually abused women and others within the Canadian forces by taking their cases out of military court and putting them into civilian courts and legislation to deal with Canada's supply lines. We could have talked about the fall economic statement, not to mention private members' bills, opposition day motions and all forms of legislation that could have been debated, but we are not. Why is that? It is because the Conservative leadership has made the decision to filibuster on the floor of the House of Commons.

We talk about character assassination, and we are witnessing the attack by the Conservatives toward the former minister, the member for Edmonton Centre. I would suggest that the one orchestrating it is the leader of the Conservative Party, who needs to look in the mirror. After all, he is the one in borderline contempt of Parliament with the multi-million dollar game he is orchestrating on the floor of the House of Commons. That is what is happening today. We are seeing a political game because the Conservative Party believes that they know better. They know better that unredacted documents should be given to the RCMP without any hesitation. That is what the leader of the Conservative Party believes, even though the RCMP and the Auditor General of Canada both say no.

The Conservatives are going to take into consideration, as a part of their filibuster, a serious issue of indigenous businesses and opportunities and use it to attack the character of a member of Parliament. However, I would suggest that we need to start reflecting more on the attitudes and the types of things the leader of the Conservative Party is doing because it is purely self-serving and not in Canada's best interest. Here is a leader who is solely focused on preventing healthy debate in the chamber.

My colleague posed a question earlier about the foreign interference issue. Again, it is rooted right back with the leader of the Conservative Party. When the Conservatives criticize the member for Edmonton Centre, members can listen to the complaints and the issues regarding the leader of the Conservative Party.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I have a question of relevance. We are here to talk about the appearance of the member for—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member knows that there is great latitude, and I expect that before the end of his speech, the hon. parliamentary secretary will come to relevance.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if the member was around a bit more and listened to a lot of the discussions that have been taking place over the last number of weeks, he would know that it is absolutely relevant as the Conservatives are starting to use motions of this nature to attack the actions of members of Parliament. They are trying to say that this is not relevant.

After all, I am reflecting on the motivations and the character of the Conservative leader. They will be super sensitive if it is a Conservative who we are talking about, but Liberal members of Parliament are free game. That is their attitude. They try to prevent members from being able to express the reality of what is taking place in the chamber today. I say shame on the member for interrupting what is, in fact, an important statement that needs to be made.

Yes, the issue of indigenous businesses is of the utmost importance. In fact, over the weekend, we had a wonderful historical moment in the province of Manitoba. On Portage and Main, on the 20th floor of a building that is now owned by Red River Métis, David Chartrand and the Métis nation signed off on a treaty. We now have the Manitoba Métis national government on treaty.

Whether it is signing that important document just this past weekend, or literally the tens of millions of dollars that the Liberals have provided to encourage and support indigenous businesses, we have been there. However, we do not hear that being talked about because it does not fit the Conservatives' narrative. That is why it is important for people who follow the debates that take place in the House of Commons to not be fooled by what the Conservative Party does and has been doing for the last six weeks.

People should not think this is about concern over indigenous businesses. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a part of the game that the Conservatives are playing, and that game happens to be a filibuster to prevent the government from doing the business that would support indigenous Canadians, and all Canadians, in many different ways. They then use that to criticize and single out a particular member. I will continue pointing out the hypocrisy that is coming out of the office of the leader of the Conservative Party.

As I was pointing out, the member for Kingston and the Islands, the deputy House leader of the government, made it very clear how another member of the House, which is being reported on in national news today, was interfered with through foreign interference. Why is that important to note? It is important because we are talking about the leader of the Conservative Party and his unwillingness to get a security clearance. Members can think about that. He is the only leader in the House of Commons to do that. If someone wants to be an intern for the Conservative Party, they are required to get a security clearance, but not if someone is the leader of the Conservative Party.

Today, through the news, we found out that there is a direct link to the leader of the Conservative Party during his leadership campaign, which was interfered with through foreign interference. Do members remember, a year ago, how often we were hearing about the issue of foreign interference? The Conservatives were jumping all over each other to raise the issue, until we caught wind that there were maybe some Conservatives at play and it might not necessarily reflect well on them.

How the attitudes quickly changed. When is the last time we saw them stand up in question period and pose a question on foreign interference? I suspect it has a lot to do with the fact that the Conservative leader does not want to talk about the issue anymore because of something there that is preventing him from wanting to get the security clearance. The news story today is all about leadership interference. That might be one aspect of it, but I think there is more to it. I think there is more to why the Leader of the Opposition does not want to get the security clearance, and I believe Canadians have a right to know.

If members across the way want to use this particular report to reflect on the member for Edmonton Centre, while they stand up and they talk about that, what they should also be doing is reflecting, maybe looking in the mirror and thinking about the leader of the Conservative Party. Should they not be applying the same sort of pressure, the same sort of tactics, maybe even within their own caucus, and call into question why their own leader refuses to get that security clearance?

I believe foreign interference is one of those reasons that had a direct impact on his own leadership and one of the reasons why he might even be the leader of the Conservative Party today. I understand that Patrick Brown—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Conservatives laugh. I do not think Patrick Brown was laughing. We have to summon him to committee in order to find the truth. I wonder maybe if we should be summoning him to the bar. That is something the Conservatives like to do. We will have to wait and find out just how open and honest they are with the answers coming from members on that particular committee.

I look forward to hearing some of the results. On the motion that we have, there is an amendment to call and demand that the member for Edmonton Centre go before the committee. As Conservatives tell me all the time, we have unfettered rights here on the floor of the House of Commons. Even if it is a majority government, it does not matter because we have unfettered rights and they have to be respected no matter what, according to Conservatives.

I am wondering if the member for Calgary Nose Hill should actually be summoned to the very same committee that Patrick Brown is going to be. It would be interesting to hear her thoughts on foreign interference. One day she is supporting Patrick Brown, and then there is a conversation that takes place. Many would suggest that it qualifies as foreign interference. Then the next day, she is no longer supporting Patrick Brown. There is something there. Then a week passes by and she does not go back to supporting him. When I say supporting, I believe she was actually the co-campaign manager or something of that fact. We need to get to the bottom of that.

Much like the motion that is being suggested here, I would suggest to all the committee members, as opposed to being instructed by the House of Commons, maybe they should be proactive and ask the member for Calgary Nose Hill to appear before the committee. That would be very helpful. I would encourage the member for Calgary Nose Hill to volunteer.

When I read the story, she seemed to be offside with what the others were saying. Where have we heard that before? Is that not the same thing that is happening with the member for Edmonton Centre and other allegations that are being made, where the member for Edmonton Centre does not agree with those allegations?