Candice Bergen

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 6th, 2018]

With regard to the Prime Minister’s comments in April 2017 that the case against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman would likely end up before the courts, and in February 2018 that it would inevitably lead to court processes: (a) was the Prime Minister revealing classified information by saying those comments; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, was an investigation launched against the Prime Minister for leaking classified information; (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, on what specific unclassified information were the Prime Minister’s comments based; and (d) who provided the Prime Minister with the information mentioned in (c)?

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 6th, 2018]

With regard to the handling of evidence related to the leak of information pertaining to the November 2015 Cabinet meeting where shipbuilding was discussed: (a) why has the Office of the Prime Minister and the Privy Council Office not released all relevant evidence; (b) can the government guarantee that no evidence has been destroyed by the Office of the Prime Minister or the Privy Council Office; and (c) what specific safeguards are in place to ensure that the records are not destroyed or altered in any way?

[Social Development, December 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's statement was a clear attack on some of the hardest working and most dedicated Canadians. For the Prime Minister to directly attack these men and insinuate they are dangerous to women in rural communities is unconscionable and diminishes the high office he holds, not to mention the fact that people in groping glass houses should not throw stones.

Again, will the Prime Minister stand and apologize for what he said to construction workers?

[Social Development, December 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable to watch the Prime Minister refuse to acknowledge that his arrogant and self-righteous comments are an insult to tens of thousands of Canadians who work in construction in our communities across the country. He sits on his high horse and with innuendo and stereotypes throws stones at these good men and women.

I want to invite the Prime Minister to apologize. Will he stand in his place, do the right thing and apologize to construction workers across the country?

[Privilege, December 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we wholeheartedly support the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I would like to reserve the right to add more to this question of privilege.

It is important to note two citations. At page 198 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, it tells of an incident in 1758 where the Nova Scotia House of Assembly proceeded against someone who made threats against a member.

Moreover, in a ruling on September 19, 1973, Speaker Lamoureux at page 6709 of the Debates stated that he had “no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats or attempts at intimidation.”

On March 24, 1994, at page 2705 of the Debates, Speaker Parent described the seriousness of the issue of intimidation this way:

Threats of blackmail or intimidation of a member of Parliament should never be taken lightly. When such occurs, the very essence of free speech is undermined. Without the guarantee of freedom of speech, no member of Parliament can do his duty as expected.

This is very serious. This goes to the very heart of what we do here in Parliament.

The Liberal government said that when it was elected, it would be open and transparent. I recall the government House leader saying that we must have tough conversations in this place.

We are asking legitimate questions and to be met with these kinds of threats is very serious.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you would give us the opportunity to further add to this important question of privilege.

[Member for Brampton East, November 30th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the House leader needs to get her story straight, because up until now both the Prime Minister's Office, the House leader and the whip have been saying that they learned of these problems on November 22. However, we just learned that the Prime Minister's Office is now saying it was told about an RCMP investigation on November 17. Which is it?

The deception and cover-up just keep getting worse. Canadians deserve some honest and clear answers. Let us start with something very simple. On what date did the Prime Minister and his office become aware of this RCMP investigation?

[Member for Brampton East, November 30th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, there is still so much we do not know involving the saga around the Liberal member for Brampton East. What we do know about this saga is that it involves a police investigation touching on drugs, money laundering, international terrorism and a million dollar gambling debt. The Prime Minister and these Liberals need to come clean and tell us what else they are hiding about this growing scandal.

[Member for Brampton East, November 30th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, there was a troubling media report last night claiming that the Liberal member for Brampton East and the Minister of Innovation were both given confidential information about a real estate transaction in Brampton. The report said that the results of the investigation into this deal have been referred to the RCMP.

My question is for the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. Is this media report true? Did the minister receive confidential information about a real estate transaction in Brampton?

[Committees of the House, November 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am very insulted by what I was just accused of. I am going to choose to take the high road. I want all of us in this House to be able to speak the language that we choose. Then, if we would like to be understood by everyone, we can say it in either English or French so it can be translated.

I sometimes think that instead of proposing a legitimate counter-argument the easy thing to do is call names. I find that very saddening, and disrespectful to this place.

I think we can continue this discussion and find a positive solution that will honour all Canadians, from every linguistic background, our first Canadians and new Canadians. That is our heart's desire, and that is the spirit contained in this report.

[Committees of the House, November 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we are in full agreement here. I agree that no one's right here to speak should ever be stopped. We all have a right to speak and to reflect our constituents' wishes, as well as our own thoughts.

However, we also all have a right to understand what is being spoken. What we are trying to do is to find the best way to do that, so that what I say in whatever language I choose to speak can be understood by each one of my hon. colleagues who are here duly elected by their constituents. What we are really aiming to do is to find that solution.

This report by the procedure and House affairs committee was reached in a real spirit of unity. It was done very well, and that is what we are looking at. Even though there may be parts of the report that we do not necessarily agree with, we agree with the spirit of it, that members should be allowed to speak and be able to understand what is being spoken. We definitely are all on the same page and we can find a solution.