Damien Kurek

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 6th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate it when the parliamentary secretary asks a question. In fact, I find it interesting that he has done two speeches on the throne speech. He seems to be the one that is really truly willing to defend his own government's record. Many other members do not seem to be willing to ask members on this side questions about it.

Regarding the prorogation and many of the questions that we were able to ask, it speaks to the government's attitude. It is all style with no substance. Liberals were happy to have a question period, but it did not want Parliament to actually do the tough work.

When it comes to prorogation, many provinces prorogue on a regular basis. It could have simply been a prorogation on the Order Paper for that day. In fact, in most provinces, that is what we will see. A legislature will sit in the morning, and it will then prorogue so the lieutenant governor can do a throne speech in the afternoon.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 6th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to enter into the debate on the throne speech and to express some very serious concerns I have with it.

The throne speech, at least in English, was nearly 7,000 words, with many catchphrases and talking points but very little substance.

I would like to address two themes. The first is why the government felt that it was even necessary to have a throne speech. Second, I would like to point out some specific challenges I have with the throne speech itself.

Regarding the prorogation of Parliament, I find it incredibly disturbing that the government felt it should shut down Parliament, and not just with the prorogation. The last eight months were bad enough, but in the middle of several concurrent investigations into the Prime Minister's conduct, Parliament was shut down. It shut down committees, members of Parliament and Canadians, truly. There is one place in the country that allows all the voices of Canadians to be heard, and that is within the hallowed walls of this chamber. The Prime Minister, in an extraordinary abuse of executive authority, used a legitimate parliamentary mechanism to shut down investigations into his own conduct, and that is shameful.

Unfortunately, but not surprising, after several months of denial and flip-flopping, when the government finally figured out, I think on March 13, that the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic was actually serious and it changed course and we saw the first bill for some emergency relief measures brought forward, even though members of my party had brought up concerns about why there were no increased measures at airports or other actions being taken to ensure Canada would be better prepared to deal with the threat of this global pandemic. However, instead of it being simply about emergency relief, it was about an incredible abuse of executive power. We saw an attempted power grab, unlike anything I have seen in the country's history. The government wanted unlimited spending authority for more than a year and a half. In what democracy would that ever be deemed acceptable to even propose let alone justify it in the midst of a global pandemic? When Canadians deserved and needed help, the government looked out for nothing other than its own power. It is unbelievable.

For members opposite who are curious about some of the aspects of parliamentary procedure and who say we need this to be a legislative reset, I asked a question of one of the members from the Liberal Party here just a few minutes ago. He somehow suggested that the six weeks was necessary to ensure the Liberals could consult with Canadians on the throne speech. It is interesting that he mentioned a few examples about how he did town halls and whatnot. He also suggested other members were not talking to their constituents, which is insulting. I was asked to respond, but since I did not have a chance during the questions and comments I will respond now.

It is unbelievable and speaks to the Liberal elitist mentality to suggest that somehow their prorogation allowed them to have an inside track on influencing the future of the country in a minority Parliament. They should well know that it is this place that allows all voices to be heard, not simply Liberal Party voices. The Conservatives received more votes in the last election than the Liberals. The Liberals had a significantly reduced mandate after the last election, yet it seems they have refused to accept the will of the Canadian people when it comes to their place in Parliament and the fact that Parliament is truly an essential service.

My last point on the concerns around why we have a throne speech today is that the government seems to play quick and fast with all aspects of how it does business, such as manufacturing urgency with the passing of Bill C-2.

We could have been debating this for weeks. It could have been passed weeks ahead of the deadline, yet the government waited until the eleventh hour and showed up at a press conference. Then the Liberal House leader tweeted out that this was a confidence motion, that it must be passed or we could go to an election and Canadians would suffer as a result. It was circumstances manufactured by the government. That is typical Liberal elitism.

I digress in that regard and will move on to some of the serious concerns I have with the throne speech. I summed it up simply to my constituents when they asked me to describe in a sentence or two my feelings on it. I said that it was vague, expensive and Ottawa knows best.

On the vague aspect of it, there were few concrete measures. The Liberals talked about their four pillars of a recovery. They have a lot of catchphrases and slogans. If there was an award for catchphrases and slogans, the government would get it. It seems to be copying from various campaigns, even other election campaigns from other democracies around the world. It throws in these catchphrases and hopes that people will somehow believe they will get the job done. On this side of the House, we know that is not the case.

It is unfortunate that most of the aspects of the throne speech are simply recycled Liberal promises. I point to one example, which is its promise to plant two billion trees. It promised this in the last election, yet in the year that has passed, it has planted zero trees. However, we have an oil sands company that has planted millions. This speaks to the bigger context of the throne speech. Many promises were recycled. The Liberals seem to think that making these grand promises and having no plan for delivery somehow serves the best interests of Canadians, and that is simply not the case.

That is one of many examples. What could have been an opportunity to see many specific concrete paths forward for our country, we saw very few. This is unfortunate. It was a huge missed opportunity.

Further, it seemed to be a vanity project for the Prime Minister. He prorogued Parliament for six weeks and had the Governor General read a throne speech, a significant aspect of our parliamentary tradition that takes the focus off the politics of the country and allows our head of state to outline an agenda. However, that was not good enough for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister had to have his face on television to continue his sorry trend of cottage chronicles, to have a televised address that simply repeated things.

I have much more to say, some of which I have addressed in other speeches, like the unity crisis. The fact is that we are six months into a fiscal year. I know many people who work in the Jim Flaherty building down the street, named after the former Conservative finance minister. There are incredibly intelligent and capable finance people in the department, yet the Minister of Finance said yesterday that it would not be prudent to estimate what the deficit would be. I know many of the people in the Finance Department have a good idea. I suspect it has more to do with the fact that Liberals are scared of what Canadians will think when they find out the cost and lack of accounting associated with their spending. At a time when all Canadians know we need to support those who need it, doing so without a plan is very unfortunate.

My last point is this. The Ottawa knows best mentality is best represented on page 18 of the throne speech. In talking about a national pharmacare strategy, the Liberals use a word when they talk about working with provinces to develop a pharmacare plan, of which there is no detail. They say that they will only work with “willing” provinces and territories.

When it comes to the government, it is clear that it is only willing to work with those who are willing to fall in line with its narrow ideology and perspective on what the future of our country should look like. That is driving in wedges across our country that are harming the capacity and capability of Canadians—

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 6th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech. He talked about the need to work together and the need to build back better. I am curious about his thoughts of whether that is consistent with the fact that his government prorogued Parliament for six weeks. Certainly members on this side of the House were ready to keep working for Canadians. The Liberal government, the Prime Minister, shut down the ability for parliamentarians to do just that for six weeks at a time when Canadians expected their elected officials to come together to do what was best for them. Certainly, in a parliamentary sense, it was not even necessary to do the so-called legislative reset that the Liberals promised.

I wonder if the member has any thoughts on that.

[Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, October 2nd, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, businesses across Canada are struggling in their recovery. I hear from many about CEBA: their frustration with applications, delays on changes that were promised long ago and long wait times. Even the MPs are being barred by officials from even asking for help. Especially when Liberals only seem to respond to our questions with condescension, that is not enough.

Could the minister tell us when we can expect this small business lifeline to be fixed?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, September 30th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, a number of changes have been made to the Canada emergency business account, CEBA, which is available to small and medium-sized enterprises. Those changes have increased access to this important program. However, many of my constituents are still left with questions when they were turned down without clear explanations and faced long questions. Officials went further and told the staff in my office that there was no way a member of Parliament could assist in the process of finding answers related to that.

Could the member answer the question on whether the government can commit to ensuring that MPs' offices can get the services that are required to ensure their constituents are well served by programs like CEBA?

[Peschisolido Report, September 29th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, every member of the House is subject to the Conflict of Interest Act and every member of the House should be expected to be held to those high standards. Therefore, absolutely any violation needs to be held to the same standards so that we can do exactly what I referred to in my speech, which is repair the erosion of trust in the institution of Parliament and ensure Canadians can trust their members of Parliament, from coast to coast to coast, to do what is best and act in a way that Canadians expect.

[Peschisolido Report, September 29th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. We should be dealing with both. That is exactly what we are doing.

It would have been great if we had been doing this for the last number of weeks. The Liberals, in typical fashion, shut everything down, say there is an emergency and, because they have shut everything down, at the last minute come up with some miraculous solution that they then have to ram through with no regard for the process, no regard for constructive feedback that could be given. They just ram it through. They manufacture these circumstances so they can use urgency for their own political ends.

Canadians deserve better. In this place today we are seized with a number of very important issues, including the help that Canadians need, but also the fact that we need to stop the erosion of trust that is taking place within our institution of Parliament. That is what this motion is about.

[Peschisolido Report, September 29th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, that can be answered quite simply. There is one prime minister in this country's history who has been found guilty of the Conflict of Interest Act, and I can assure members it is not a Conservative prime minister. It is the Liberal Prime Minister who sits across the way, who self-aggrandizes every day, and who is eroding the trust Canadians have in this place. Accordingly, it is a shame there have not been appropriate consequences.

[Peschisolido Report, September 29th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, as I enter into this debate, it is unfortunate that, once again, parliamentarians are seized with having to discuss a Liberal ethical failure.

I would like to respond a little to some of the members opposite who seemed to be so concerned that we in this House have to deal with the long list, the big pile, of ethical failures when, in their words, we should be debating the things that matter to Canadians. It is unfortunate that these Liberals seem so concerned about their own political aims that they would do something like prorogue Parliament when we could have been debating the very issues that they say are so important. We could have been debating them weeks ago. We offered, as the Conservatives, to come in on Sunday to debate the very legislation that they are saying we need to spend more time on. We offered that, and they said no, and so I find it tragic, but this is typical in true Liberal fashion.

The Liberals will be so quick to say that there is an emergency, that we need to be part of a team Canada approach, whatever the case is, when, really, they have no interest in listening to anyone other than those narrow perspectives that they decide are important. It is unfortunate that, in the process over the past eight months, so often this House and the perspectives of many in it have been silenced. If they were interested in a team Canada approach, I truly believe that we could have looked at many of the programs that have helped Canadians and they would have been made better. We see something like the emergency wage subsidy. The Liberals started at a 10% subsidy, which, after significant pressure from members of my party, the Conservative Party, and many Canadians and business groups, it was raised to 75%. That is called a team Canada approach, and I am glad that there are instances of that, but we could have done so much more had they not sidelined Parliament.

If we look at the prorogation, it is unprecedented in using a legitimate parliamentary tool to shut down the investigations into the actions of the Prime Minister and his senior cohorts. It is unprecedented that a prime minister would abuse executive authority in such a flagrant manner. It is unbelievable.

One of my colleagues across the way used the word “disappointment”. Now, in his context, he said that he was disappointed that we are debating Liberal ethical failures, and I am sure he is. He would rather be talking about anything else, I am sure. I will tell members what I hear each and every day from my constituents: disappointment in this Liberal government, disappointment in the laundry list of ethical failures, disappointment in the fact that there is a Prime Minister across the way who is saying that the idea of a national unity crisis is crazy. It is unbelievable, and a true shame for the honour that needs to be represented in the House from coast to coast to coast.

I find it tragic that we have government members who are so embroiled in their own scandal, so embroiled in their own political aims that they would refuse to acknowledge the crisis. It is not for lack of trying from every western MP, and not just Conservative western MPs, although we do make up the vast majority of them. Western MPs have been making it clear that there is a unity crisis, yet the government refuses to acknowledge that it even exists; for shame.

We have before us today another Liberal ethical failure of a former member of Parliament breaching the ethics code 10 times. This is a code that was put in place to ensure that members of this place had a framework to ensure that their ethical conduct fit within the expectations of Canadians. One of my fellow Conservative colleagues was reflecting upon his many years in this place and said that, back when it was first introduced, the idea of naming and shaming was enough, that the members of this place were concerned about how they conducted themselves, and they were concerned about the fact that they wanted to do what was best for Canadians.

However, when we look at the conduct of the top of the current government over close to the last five years, let alone the conduct of many others, we see time and time again the absolute disregard they show toward ethics and the conduct that Canadians expect us to uphold. There is real disappointment in the actions of the Liberal government. It is so consumed by its own scandals, waste and mismanagement that it is truly distracting from its ability to do the things that Canadians expect it to do.

It is important for us to continue to debate the other items that are before the House, but if we do not ensure that the trust and integrity of this institution is upheld, we are in an incredibly difficult place. When the trust in this institution is eroded, we see significant challenges. We see that there is a lack of trust in anything the government says, not just its political leaders, but anything that the Liberals say. Canadians cannot trust their Prime Minister when he has truly misrepresented himself in this place, and it has been found to be the case, whether regarding his Aga Khan vacation or the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

I sat on the ethics committee this summer and every day there was a new development about the government's unbelievable conduct. It was an absolute embarrassment to the institutions and places that each one of us represents, all 338 of us and the seats that we are temporary custodians of. The erosion of trust that has been taking place is unbelievable.

Therefore, it is important that we debate issues like this, for we have to ensure that when somebody makes a mistake there is a full accounting of that. The motion that my colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes has brought forward is a step to ensure that there is an accounting and that responsibility is taken, because Canadians demand nothing less. There is a need to ensure that responsibility is taken for the actions of the government.

Canadians cannot trust the words of the current government, and it is causing a breakdown of the trust in our society. It is truly a societal issue: when we cannot trust the words of our leaders, it causes a societal breakdown that is concerning beyond all belief. We need to take this issue very seriously, just as we all need to take ethics and our conduct very seriously. We need to work diligently to ensure that trust is brought back to the institutions of Parliament and that we demonstrate that this place matters. There is one place in this country where every square kilometre of this beautiful nation is represented, and that is on the green carpet within the walls of this chamber. We need to demonstrate to Canadians that we are all worthy of that.

I represent a large rural riding with many communities. I had a conversation with constituents the other day and asked them to give me a brief report on how things were going in their communities and how they feel the government is doing. I listened on Zoom calls with person after person, about 20 of them in all. Time and time again, what I heard most was that they were tired of the scandal, the waste and the mismanagement of the government, and that they were looking forward to a day when good governance was brought back to this country: governance that Canadians could trust.

I am proud to support the motion brought forward by my colleague and look forward to answering questions in that regard, so that we can bring trust back to the hallowed halls of this Parliament.

[Proceedings on the Bill Entitled an Act Relating to Certain Measures in Response to COVID-19, September 28th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, many members of the opposition have expressed outrage about the prorogation of Parliament and the shutdown of committees. Earlier, the member's colleague said that while members of the opposition focus on prorogation, the government will focus on getting Canadians the support they need. That sounds nice, except it is almost as if the Liberals forgot that government is a function of Parliament. Nothing happens in government without the consent of Parliament.

I would simply ask my hon. colleague if he believes that Parliament should play an essential part in making sure that Canadians do in fact get the help they need.