Chris Warkentin

[Privilege, October 7th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, there is clearly incredible unease on the other side.

[Privilege, October 7th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, they are clapping now because that is exactly what they want. They want us to engage in their cover-up alongside them—

[Privilege, October 7th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, there is another Liberal member saying, “Call the question.” We will.

What the Liberals so desperately want us to do is to shut up about the corruption scandal.

[Privilege, October 7th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I hear the Liberals laughing, chuckling and saying that would not be the case. Well, I wonder whether the hon. member would put that to the test.

The member has all of a sudden lost his tongue. If he actually believed that were false, he would be happily trucking the documents over to the RCMP and saying, “Look through them. We have nothing to hide.” What they have is something to hide. If they did not have anything to hide, they would have already released the documents.

[Privilege, October 7th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, today, we find ourselves in an incredible mess. I have been around this place for some time, and I can tell members that it is rare for a government to be so blatantly obvious in protecting those who have engaged in outright corruption. One would wonder this: What drives this unbelievable motivation to ensure that the evidence on the corruption that has been uncovered by committee members, followed by the Auditor General and now the RCMP looking into this, is not released? I do not know, but I have known folks who have been guilty and wanted to hide evidence. I am a dad, and I have been there. I asked my son when he was younger, “Kyler, did you eat a cookie that you weren't supposed to?” Well, he immediately backs up and moves into the corner, where there is evidence of the cookie crumbs, trying to hide them. The government reminds me very much of my four-year-old child trying to hide the crumbs, the evidence of the crime.

The government has been in power for nine years, and over its nine years, it has engaged in many different things that were found to be corrupt. Obviously, lining the pockets of Liberal insiders has become what the Liberals are known for. What is increasingly devastating is the fact that this behaviour just keeps happening again and again. It seems as though they get caught once and they say, “Well, now we know how to do this, and we will do it a bit better next time. Maybe we can do it in such a way that we don't get caught.”

The Liberals have decided, after having been found out and found guilty for so many different things, that the tools of government should now be used to simply cover the evidence. We have seen this before. We saw it when the Prime Minister was found guilty of having accepted an illegal vacation; there were attempts to cover the evidence. We have seen this time and time again with the government; the Liberals have decided that the best way to defend themselves is by trying to hide the cookie crumbs.

This scandal is unprecedented in recent history. This is $400 million of taxpayers' money that was handed out. The Auditor General found 186 conflicts of interest, meaning that the people who were doling out the money were in conflict. They would be benefiting themselves personally with the money they were handing out. These people were appointed by and, in many cases, good friends of the Liberal Party. However, rather than saying, “You caught us. We're going to come clean”, now the government says, “We're going to stop at nothing, including ensuring that this institution isn't able to do what it must constitutionally be able to do.” That is to demand the evidence.

This did not just happen in the last number of weeks. As a matter of fact, the government has had some time. All the parties of the House, except for the Liberals, voted to ensure that this documentation, the evidence, would be released to the RCMP.

Now, the government claims that this would be a massive charter violation, which is its new defence. It is completely laughable. Every student of history should know, or does know, that the charter is there to protect Canadians from the government, not to protect the government from Canadians. Canadians deserve, through their Parliament, to be able to demand that evidence be brought forward; that is one of the rights and responsibilities of the House.

Constitutionally, it is our responsibility to hold the government to account on behalf of taxpayers. Our number one job as parliamentarians is to oversee the spending and the misspending of government. Our members found the misappropriation of funds. The Auditor General, having reviewed that, found 186 conflicts of interest, $400 million that was given to members, Liberal appointees. They gave the money, nearly $400 million, to companies that those individuals were actually part owners of.

Imagine that. At a time when millions of Canadians are lined up at food banks because of the policies of the Liberal-NDP government, with millions of Canadians unable to feed their kids, individuals who were appointed by the Liberal-NDP government were lining their own pockets to the tune of $400 million. It is unbelievable. Now the government says that the evidence the Auditor General found, which the government has in its possession, should not be handed over to the RCMP.

We have talked a lot about the numbers, 186 conflicts of interest and nearly $400 million that has been handed out inappropriately to line Liberal insiders' pockets. What is startling is that there were just spot audits; there was not a full audit of the program. As a matter of fact, when they went through and just chose individual grants and contributions, they did not even get to half of them. What they found was that 82% of those they reviewed were in conflict and were ineligible, in many cases, to even have the money distributed to those particular programs.

Imagine an 82% failure rate, an 82% corruption rate. Imagine if they had done an audit of the entire program. We would see that the number would have been significantly higher if the entire program had been audited.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 17th, 2024]

With regard to government dealings with economists Jim Stanford, Andrew Sharpe, Mostafa Askari, Mel Cappe, Marc Lévesque formerly of the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, Don Drummond, Kevin Milligan, Stephen Gordon, Andrew Leach, Paul Beaudry, Pierre Fortin, and Mike Moffat, since November 4, 2015: (a) which of the economists above have received government contracts; (b) what are the details of all contracts with these economists, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of the goods or services provided, (v) manner in which it was awarded (sole-sourced versus or competitive bid); (c) what are the details of all grants or contributions issued to these economists, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) recipient, (iii) amount, (iv) purpose of the grant or contribution; and (d) which of these economists have received an Order in Council appointment from the government or have served on any type of government advisory body since November 4, 2015, including, for each, the (i) name of the individual, (ii) body or organization for which they were appointed or served, (iii) position, (iv) start and end dates?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 17th, 2024]

With regard to government dealings with Pollara Strategic Insights (PSI) since January 1, 2020: (a) what are the details of all contracts signed between government departments and agencies and PSI, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods or services, (iv) manner in which the contract was awarded (sole-sourced or competitive bid), (v) topics of research or polling covered by the contract, if applicable; (b) what are the details of each poll conducted by PSI for the government, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) questions asked, (iii) results; and (c) what are the details of all meetings held between government officials, ministers or ministerial staff and PSI owner Don Guy, including, for each, the (i) list of attendees, (ii) date, (iii) location, (iv) purpose of the meeting?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 17th, 2024]

With regard to government expenditures related to preparations for committee appearances by ministers, government officials, or representatives of any government department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, or for appearances by any former official, since January 1, 2019: what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) date of the contract, (ii) vendor, (iii) description of goods or services, (iv) date of the committee appearance, (v) name and title of the individual or individuals appearing at committee, (vi) name of the committee, (vii) manner in which the contract was awarded (sole-sourced or competitive bid)?

[Privilege, May 27th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I think the question is a very important one. I do not stand here as myself; I stand here as the voice of those who sent me here, as does every member of the chamber.

What an idea it is that the Speaker would in fact be engaging in partisan preferences in the House and not enforcing the rules as they are set out to ensure fair play, not ensuring that all members are treated equally and not ensuring that the procedures are conducted in such a way that we can be sure as to what the voices of Canadians are and what the outcomes are in terms of both.

The Speaker oversees all kinds of things, including votes in the House of Commons. He oversees the language that is used in the House of Commons. The Speaker oversees all kinds of administration that goes on outside the chamber in terms of the resources that are allocated to different members of Parliament as well.

The Speaker plays such a central role in defending our democratic institution. If the Speaker is deemed to be partisan in his role, how can Canadians have any faith in this institution anymore? We are their voices, and if we do not believe that the Speaker is conducting himself in a fair manner, how can Canadians? The Speaker has to go.

[Privilege, May 27th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely clear that nearly half of the members of the House have already called for the Speaker to step down. Last time, following the video and all of the evidence that was provided to the NDP, the New Democrats said, yes, what the Speaker did was wrong, and, based on the information, they believed that the Speaker just did not know what his role should be. However, they did say that if it happened again, they would also have to vote to have the Speaker removed.

We know what the Liberals are going to do because the Liberals believe that the current Speaker serves their purposes very well. The question is this: What will the NDP do? If its members vote with the Bloc and the Conservative Party, the Speaker will be removed. Therefore, will the NDP be true to its word or will it find another reason to yet again support the corrupt Liberal government?