Damien Kurek

[Pharmacare Act, June 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure members that neither this House nor any Canadian wants to hear me sing, so I will spare members of this House and Canadians that. I would suggest that it was when—

[Pharmacare Act, June 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to stand in the people's House and to talk about the issues that are so important to them. I appreciate also the opportunity to have had a couple of questions to that previous member. If I could sum up, when I posed what are very legitimate questions about the plan that the Liberals have presented to Canadians, he basically said, “Do not worry about it. Just trust us, and we will take care of it, so there is no need to discuss it any further.”

I am sorry, but that is not how democracy works and that is not how this place works. I would suggest that this is part of the reason why, over the last nine years of the current Liberal government, we have seen a litany of failures on virtually everything that the Prime Minister and the government, propped up by their coalition partners in the NDP, have tried to accomplish. There is scandal. There is failure, and there is a series of broken promises that go along with it. As a result, we are seeing an erosion of trust in our institutions and outcomes for Canadians being decreased. At every step of the process, we are seeing that Canadians are worse off today than they were when the Prime Minister was first elected in 2015 on all these fluffy promises with zero substance. When it comes to the bill that we have before us, it is simply another example of that.

I will take us on a bit of a journey, if members would allow me. During the 2021 election, which the Prime Minister said would not happen but did anyway, and we all know what that is, Conservatives said very clearly that a vote for the Liberal Party was a vote for a coalition. We said that during the election, and yet the Liberals and the NDP said that it would never happen, that there would be no agreement and there was no chance. Those were their words. In fact, the media even started criticizing Conservatives for suggesting that this would be the case, yet it was only a number of months after the election in 2021 when we saw the so-called confidence and supply agreement, which is really just a very poorly negotiated coalition agreement.

Ultimately, we saw that the NDP gave away any bargaining power that it could have had in the context of a minority Parliament and just gave carte blanche to a Liberal Prime Minister and his government to do with that power what they wanted. There is the NDP, backing them up every step of the way. We have seen over the last two years or so that the consequence of that is a series of poor public policy outcomes, where the Liberals will stand up and peacock all day long about the success that they are showing and the work that they are doing for Canadians and whatnot, and yet when we look into the details, we see some of the most shallow policy outcomes, which I would suggest have a very small chance of even being actualized when it comes down to it. The joke that I have heard from a number of constituents, so I will share it with members, is about George Strait's song about having some oceanfront property in Arizona, and it is certainly that sort of sale. It seems like the New Democrats would be quick to buy anything that the Liberals are offering, specifically when it comes to pharmacare.

It is very relevant to the conversation, because it was at the last New Democratic convention where members—

[Pharmacare Act, June 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity for follow-up, because the member said Liberals promised that it will not happen, but what are the assurances that this is in fact the case? Time and time again, we see a litany of broken promises by the government, partnered with its coalition partners in the NDP. What assurances are there, beyond their word?

[Pharmacare Act, June 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious, and I hope that the member will give me a direct answer on this. There has been some real concern, because the way the bill is structured does suggest, as it talks about being single-payer but very limited in the scope of coverage, that it could have the potential of taking away current coverage that up to 97% of Canadians already have. This is something that I am hearing about from my constituents, who are concerned about the way the government has brought forward this legislation, the way it has partnered with the NDP, and that it has not had the conversations with private plan providers. There is real concern that Canadians would actually be worse off after the Liberals have passed the bill.

I am hoping that the member could provide some specific details around whether he shares the concern that up to 97% of Canadians could see less coverage after the bill passes than they currently have.

[Petitions, May 29th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am pleased to be able to present on behalf of so many Canadians calls attention to the fact that in the 2021 Liberal Party platform, the Liberals promised to subject charitable organizations to a values test.

Petitioners highlight how this was done before, which targeted so many organizations that do good work in our communities and led to many organizations not being eligible for important funding.

The petitioners call on the House of Commons to protect and preserve the application of charitable status on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without discrimination on the basis of political or religious values and without the imposition of another “values test”. Further, the petitioners ask the House of Commons to affirm the right of Canadians to freedom of expression. That just sounds like common sense to me.

[Petitions, May 29th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to stand in this place to present petitions signed by so many Canadians.

The first petition I would like to present today is signed by a number of constituents and Canadians who share the concern among Pakistani Canadians regarding political unrest and socio-economic turmoil in the country of Pakistan. There are concerns about the reports of politically motivated acts of violence and threats against opposition parties and their followers.

There is grave concern, further, about the recent arrest of former Pakistani prime minister, Imran Khan, and the steps being taken by the Pakistani military and its agents to limit participation in general elections by the former prime minister and Pakistan's largest opposition party.

The petitioners ask for the Government of Canada to take concrete steps to support democracy, support freedom and ensure that Canada does everything it can to support free and fair elections in the country of Pakistan.

[Privilege, May 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I would look back at the beginning of this Parliament, and the previous Parliament, when the then Speaker was even taken to court by the Prime Minister and the government for upholding the needed impartiality of the Chair. These questions were not asked during the 42nd Parliament, although the Liberal Party was the third party at the time, way in the back corner, but its members did not have questions about impartiality during Stephen Harper's majority government. In the three minority parliaments prior to that, when there was a Liberal Speaker presiding over two Conservative minority parliaments and a Liberal minority parliament, they did not have these questions about the impartiality of the Speaker.

I implore all of my colleagues, especially those from the Liberal benches, but specifically those from the New Democrat benches, for the sake of our institutions and for all Canadians, to let us make sure chair occupants are able to conduct themselves in a way that is truly impartial.

[Privilege, May 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the member is heckling that she doubts it, but I believe there is even an email in my inbox from someone in the city of Waterloo. My question for all Liberal MPs is whether they care about power first or the institutions that we should all serve.

When it comes to the issue we are debating here today, as the old saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” We have seen this pattern repeated time and time again, and it is too bad that the Liberals seem so desperate to hang on to power that they refuse to acknowledge how their attempts are eroding trust in the very institutions we serve. They are ultimately eroding the trust of the Canadians we serve.

[Privilege, May 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that more Liberals are not seized with this debate, because I suspect their opinion is like that of the many within the benches of the opposition who have seen this troubling erosion of trust. The reason I can say that confidently is that I have been hearing increasingly from constituents of Liberal members who are saying that they have lost trust in the ability of the government to listen to its people.

[Privilege, May 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech that my colleague for Trois-Rivières gave previously.

Not to suggest the presence or absence of any members, I would hope that all members take this very seriously. What we are talking about here is at the very foundation of, and the need to be able to trust in, our democratic institutions.

At committee the other day, I had the opportunity to talk a little bit about the importance of that process.

When it comes to the ballot, the election and the necessity of making sure every Canadian has that opportunity during a general election to go into that voting booth and mark a ballot, it is essential that there be trust in every step of that process. However, some things have been called into question. There have been instances of election interference, including the Communist dictatorship in Beijing pressuring members of the Chinese diaspora in Canada to vote in a certain direction. It is essential to ensure that we do everything we can to protect our democracy, and likewise in this place.

When the role of the Speaker was first contemplated in the 1300s in the United Kingdom, in the early years of the establishment of Westminster democracy, there was a deep understanding of the need for a moderating voice, so that there could be parley, so that we could have discussions and debate as opposed to simply fighting wars. The carpets are still green in the people's House of Commons. The Speaker plays an important role in that process, as it is his or her responsibility to facilitate that.

I talk about trust when it comes to ballots in a general election and how essential it is for each and every Canadian to have that opportunity to cast a ballot. That is, by extension, passed on to this place. Each and every member of Parliament has to be able to trust the institution.

Each one of us has to navigate the circumstances of politics and partisanship, while also ensuring that we serve every constituent. I have been vocal in support of the first-past-the-post system because of its simplicity and its legacy within the Westminster system. However, when constituents walk through my office door, I have never asked who they voted for. The expectation is that I will serve them and their needs and help them with casework. We may not always agree. In fact, there are many instances where I do not agree with individuals across my constituency, but never once would I put at risk that sacred obligation that I have to serve all of the people I represent.

When there was discussion surrounding the establishment of a more formal role of Speaker, there was the acknowledgement that there had to be that moderating presence within the House of Commons to ensure that debates could take place, a moderating presence that could be trusted by both those who had the ability to make a change and those who would make up what we now know as the opposition, so government and opposition. Although it was not quite as formalized in those early days, and quite often ended up being the presence that pushed against, not necessarily a government, in the sense of a political party having won an election, but rather the direction in which the Crown was moving the country, there had to be that voice that could be trusted by all. However, there are instances throughout the history of the Westminster system where that has not always been the case, but we have been able to build upon that history to the point where it highlights how important is the role that the occupant of that chair plays.

It is not just in terms of the debate. That is a big part of it and that is what people see. For all of us in this place, that makes up a significant portion of the time Canadians get to know MPs, whether it be from question period, debates or the symbols that are associated with this. However, the foundation of it is trust. The privileges of members have been violated an unprecedented number of times. I have not yet had the opportunity to look into the specifics, but there have been many questions of privilege that have been raised in the current Parliament that call into question many things.

I will get to the troubling correlation that I see with that and the leadership that is attempting to guide our country right now, but Conservatives see how the sacred trust of the individual who sits in the chair as Speaker has been called into question. It is not for dislike of the individual. Many of us will have fights about policy and differences of opinion. In fact, I get so frustrated when I quite often hear my Liberal and NDP colleagues say that they are doing what is best for Canada and anybody who opposes them is wrong or is un-Canadian or something to that effect. That not only is insulting to me as a parliamentarian and representative of the people of Battle River—Crowfoot, but speaks to how we have to ensure that we take so seriously the obligation that we have as members of Parliament.

There has been a series of examples, and if this was the first instance, a beginner's mistake, I would understand that. I would hope that I and many others would take seriously the need to allow someone to grow in the role, but I am so concerned that this is a trend that seems to have continued over the course of the last number of months. Further to that point, these are the public instances where we are seeing a lack of impartiality. I have heard from constituents who have called that into question in other instances that have not necessarily made media attention.

Part of the sacred trust that is required for the chair occupant is that every parliamentarian needs to be able to trust that it is not only the words that are said while the Speaker takes his place in the throne at the front of Parliament, but every decision that the Speaker makes in the undertaking of those duties and many of the questions associated with that. For example, there were questions asked by the Speaker's chief of staff to the clerk to clear this in advance. There were questions asked about whether this would be appropriate. There has been a host of other concerns raised in terms of whether that partisanship can happen. We have the erosion of the ability of MPs to trust that the decisions the Speaker is making are, in fact, impartial and ultimately serve the interests of the institutions, which is what best serves, full stop, the interests of parliamentarians and, ultimately, Canadians.

I will conclude with this. One of the concerns that I certainly highlighted in the discussion after the previous Speaker's resignation, when there did not seem to be many Liberals running to the previous Speaker's defence, who was taken to court by the Prime Minister, is that we see excuses being made. We see members quick to jump to their defence saying it is sorted, but it is not their fault. I would suggest that the Prime Minister and the leadership that he has presided over during the course of the last nine or so years has led to an erosion of trust in the very foundation of our democratic institutions.

As a result, I would suggest that we have to all take it upon ourselves to so diligently rebuild that trust that has been broken. If we do not, my fear is that so many Canadians will stop seeing themselves represented by those who take their seats in this place, and that would be an absolute travesty. We need to take this issue seriously. We need to ensure that we restore trust and, ultimately, ensure that the Speaker is able to operate in an impartial manner.