Debates of Dec. 3rd, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy when this member gets up and goes way over the top. What we are talking about is $400 million that has gone missing, and his party has stood in the House repeatedly to support the government. The last time it happened, it was $40 million with the sponsorship scandal. This one scandal is $400 million.

The principle is that Parliament is supreme. We have the right to see these documents. He is causing this mess because he is supporting that government.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will bring everything back to the $400-million details: $58 million went to 10 ineligible projects, $334 million went to over 186 cases of projects in which board members were in a conflict of interest and $58 million went to projects without guaranteeing that terms and conditions were met. This is why we have been standing on our hands and our heads, trying to get the government's attention to release the documents. The Liberal government does not seem to give a wingding about this.

Could the member let me know what he thinks about these numbers?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

“Wingding” actually works. Madam Speaker, we see how the Liberals are heckling right now because they want to talk about anything other than the corruption, this scandal and what they are trying to hide. We also see heckling from the NDP again, as usual.

Canadians in Oshawa, my constituents, are sick and tired of this. I did a survey in Oshawa and asked my constituents if they were fed up and if they wanted an election. Out of the 600 responses we have gotten so far, and we are getting a lot of responses, 98% of respondents want a carbon tax election now. They are sick and tired of the corruption of the Liberal government and the opposition party, the NDP, supporting it each and every step of the way.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, I come here, week in and week out, to do work for my constituents. I want to do work for the country. I want to be up in the House talking about such things as the housing accelerator. Some Conservatives wanted it, and some did not; some wanted it but could not speak up for it because their leader would not let them. It was unbelievable.

I want to speak about the Canada child benefit, child care and the school food program. However, we cannot, because we are involved in this debacle, week in and week out.

There is obviously one speech. It is like a Christmas fruitcake that gets handed from member to member. I am tired of listening to the same thing.

The member for Calgary Nose Hill was clearly approached by foreign actors asking her to pull out. Therefore, I want to ask the member what happened. Let us clear the air. Let us be transparent. I want to know this: What is up with the foreign interference with respect to the leadership?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, again, the member wants to talk about anything other than what we are talking about today. This is one of the members of the Liberal Party who signed a letter to kick out the Prime Minister because he has no confidence in him, for which he will get a lot of support on this side.

As far as foreign interference is concerned, let us just talk about the Prime Minister's statement that he admires the basic dictatorship of China, as well as the cash for access fundraisers he had early on. Do people around here remember that? Does the member remember the amount of money that was given to the Trudeau Foundation in order to buy influence with the Prime Minister, who openly received it? His ideology is not the ideology of Canadians.

When Conservatives are asked what country they admire the most, they do not say they admire the basic dictatorship of China. They say they admire Canada, our democracy and the principles we stand for.

Parliament is supreme. The government needs to release the documents.

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

Madam Speaker, Conservatives continually avoid answering one of the questions out there in the media right now. Today, it was reported that five people very close to Patrick Brown's campaign team in 2022 knew that the Conservative member for Calgary Nose Hill was approached by Indian diplomats who were trying to influence her support away from Patrick Brown. This led up to the leadership of the member for Carleton, the current Leader of the Opposition.

Does the member think Canadians have the right to know if there are foreign actors trying to interfere in the electoral process in Canada, yes or no? Should the member for Calgary Nose Hill come to the public safety committee to provide an answer to that question?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe that the member from Calgary Nose Hill already put out a statement on that.

I am going to read another quote from their friend, Vladimir Lenin, who said, “Truth is the most precious thing. That's why we should ration it.”

The former environment minister actually said, “We gave them some real advice—

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

You are over time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, today is December 3, and here we are again, discussing the privilege motion regarding the submission of documents to Parliament. We should not be debating the motion; we should not be debating it today, and we should not have been debating it this week, last week—

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

The member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to congratulate the member on being the 215th speaker to the question of privilege.

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

That is not a point of order.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, we should not be debating the motion, and we should not have been debating it for the past six or seven weeks, since September 26, because the Liberals should have released the information regarding the green slush fund weeks ago, as requested. They should have given it to the RCMP and to Parliament.

However, the Liberals, as is typical of them, are just snubbing their nose at Parliament. It is a lack of respect for the institution and for the Canadian people, because this is the people's House. The Liberals blame the Conservatives, saying it is our fault for continuing to speak about the issue.

The fact of the matter is that the Liberal Speaker made the ruling. He is supposed to be a non-partisan Speaker. He is not just a regular Liberal member who became the Speaker; he was the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. He was pretty close. He has ruled on the privilege motion. That is why we are here, so the Liberal members should take it up with the Speaker.

The Liberals had their back up with the former Speaker, who was a Liberal member of Parliament, the member from Nipissing—Timiskaming. The Liberals were quite happy to get rid of him even though he was on their side and had been elected as a Liberal. Why were they? It was because in the last Parliament—

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

The member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, this is actually a real point of order. The member just referred to the former Speaker and said that he “was on their side”. One of the tried and true parts of the House is that the Speaker is impartial. Speaking negatively or implying motive—

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

To the hon. member's point, I was just actually consulting on the matter. It is true that Speakers are meant to be impartial; there are no sides. Speakers rule. That is it; that is all. I would ask members to respect that.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I did not attack the Speaker.

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

Saying that the Speaker is on one side or the other and—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

This is getting very disruptive. The hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge is trying to make a speech. I would like to know exactly which standing order hon. members are referring to, before they rise on a point of order.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order and with respect to the insinuation, all members including the Conservatives vote individually and privately for the Speaker. The Conservatives are part of this.

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

I have addressed the issue. We should not be referring to the Speakership as being partial or impartial. The Speakership is impartial by nature.

Therefore I would just remind the hon. member to not refer to the Speaker as taking sides. The hon. Speaker does not take sides, and I would like him to retract the comment, please.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, thank you. I retract the comment. If you do not mind my saying, the Speaker, whoever the Speaker is, will normally be a member from the party that is in government, whether Conservative or Liberal. It is not a matter of being partisan; it is just the case. I am just mentioning where my thoughts were.

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

This is about the Speaker; it is not about partisanship. I think the ruling has been made, and I would like us to move on. The hon. member may continue his speech but may not make references to the Speakership.