Damien Kurek

[Privilege, June 16th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely true. We would not be here today if the Liberal government had a shred of respect for Canada's democratic institutions. Again, it is a national shame that there is such disregard for Canada's institutions, members of Parliament and the will of Parliament, that the Liberals would play games, putting our very democracy at risk.

The answer is quite simple. Canadians deserve better, full stop. The mandate given to this Parliament after the last election was very clear. A majority of the House is not Liberals, and we have, as members of Parliament, as a Parliament as whole, the ability to make decisions accordingly.

Our traditions and history have shown that there is a Liberal minority government and the Prime Minister is leader of the executive. That is fair and that is fine. However, opposition parties are the majority in the House, and we see a tremendous amount of unity—

[Privilege, June 16th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, the member touches on an important issue. I have noted in question period over the last number of weeks and throughout the Liberals' history that whenever something starts not going their way, they simply pivot and blame everyone else. They yell and scream at the top of their lungs and concoct, manufacture, fabricate, in many cases, a story that has little resemblance to the truth. That is what we see here today.

Members have said that this is somehow delaying things that could have been passed months ago. Parliament did not have to be adjourned for so many months, especially when other democratic countries figured out a way to make their parliaments work. In fact, provinces in this country figured out a way to make their legislatures work in the midst of the pandemic.

I see members of the Liberal Party shaking their heads. They must not like the democratic accountability aspect of what parliamentarians are calling for and demand, and what Canadians need.

There is a lot more that I could say on this, but absolutely, it is a national shame that the Liberals would suggest this is somehow a filibuster when it touches the very heart of what Canadians—

[Privilege, June 16th, 2021]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I did preface some of these examples by saying that this debate tonight was not without context, the larger context of what has been six years of failure, contempt for Canada's democratic principles.

I know there is also other important business that the House has to get to and I will simply bring my speech to a conclusion. I know I have articulated a number of concerns as have other members from all parties, especially the opposition parties, which have articulated very well some of the concerns our nation and our democratic infrastructure are facing. This motion strikes to the heart of what Canadian democracy is about.

I would call upon all members elected to this esteemed chamber to take seriously the need to support the motion in order to steward that democracy, which we all have the responsibility to do, to ensure that our democratic institutions are protected, not only for today but that they do not simply become a footnote in history, that the supremacy of Parliament and all that means is ensured for us today, tomorrow and for future generations of Canadians.

[Privilege, June 16th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to stand in this House to address the pressing issues facing this country, but the subject we are debating here tonight is unfortunate. It is a very serious question that has been brought forward to all parliamentarians about the actions of the government, specifically an agency of government, that has truly called into question some of the very basic democratic principles that our nation is built on.

In the Speaker's Ruling earlier today, it very specifically outlined why this debate needs to take place, that the actions of the government are contemptuous and violate the privileges of who we are as a democracy. I want to touch on that word “privilege” for all of those, and I am sure there are many folks watching these proceedings, who need to understand.

Privilege is a word that is often referred to as something that has to do with status. Parliamentary privilege is a little different. It speaks to the primacy of what democracy is in our country, the fact that our democratic system elevates Parliament, the House of Commons, the lower chamber of Canada's Parliament, to be the voice of its people. Every square inch of this nation is represented by the 338 seats within this chamber.

I do find it very interesting. A question I ask students when I am speaking to classes is simply this, “What is the highest elected office in our land?” Many students think it is a trick question. They point out a number of things. Sometimes they will refer to the executive, the Prime Minister and the Governor General on occasion. It kind of depends on where they are in the social studies curriculum. There are a few students who do understand the reality of the member of Parliament, and the primacy of Parliament, the role that Parliament plays in our nation.

It is absolutely key to the discussion that we are having here tonight, and how fundamental it is for the future of our country. I want to thank the Speaker for being that custodian of this House, that custodian of Canada's democracy in so thoughtfully addressing such an important issue, and for the opposition House leader to bring forward a motion that outlined some specific action items that would be an adequate response to the contemptuous behaviour of government, and specifically an agency of government that is called to the bar.

Again, this is kind of a parliamentary term. Most people out there would not understand the history behind the bar of Parliament, what that represents and the strong millennia of tradition associated with that dating back centuries in the United Kingdom. To call an individual to the bar is a significant thing with significant symbolism, which bears out how significant this debate is. Further, the action item of calling upon the government to actually do what Parliament has said that it needs to do.

I find it tragic that we have to have this debate, that the Liberals have taken it upon themselves and developed a culture where they refuse to acknowledge that Canada is even a democracy. That is troubling on every level. I often hear from constituents about how absolutely fundamental it is that we steward our democracy well, especially at a time where we see so many aspects of that being challenged.

I would note how this particular motion has done something that is quite unprecedented. It has united the majority of members of Parliament, representing a number of different opposition parties, the official opposition being one of them. I have heard very thoughtful speeches from members representing all opposition parties this evening that acknowledge the significance of what we are debating here tonight.

It is fascinating and unprecedented, I think, to see how united all opposition parties and a majority of members of Parliament are in acknowledging how serious this is. Further, the second thing that is unprecedented is to see the flippant attitude that the government has used to approach such a serious issue.

I find it incredible and disappointing beyond belief that the government would take such an unserious approach and contemptuous approach to this. In fact, I find it interesting. A number of the speeches from the governing Liberals emphasized why this debate is even necessary with the ignorance and arrogance they approached Canada's democratic institutions with.

This has to be met with a serious tone and it is so unfortunate that has not been the case. I would note this motion that came from the committee that started this whole process included Liberal support. I would simply ask, where those members are now? Why are they not taking this seriously? Is it possible that the executive branch of our government, the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers, have demanded silence on such an important issue?

It is a national shame; those members stood up in committee, to much political risk, I would suggest, especially with how the government has responded to the motion here today. It is a significant political risk. They have been silenced or are silent here tonight, and that is incredibly unfortunate and chips away at the strength of Canada's democracy.

When we look at this, we need to expand the context a bit. This is not a singular event. That is a key part of what we are discussing here. This motion and the actions leading up to it are not a singular event. I know some of my colleagues who have spoken before me have outlined aspects of that.

From the position of being on Zoom, we kind of have an interesting window into the perspectives of Liberal members. Whenever things are brought up about the Prime Minister, specifically his record, they are often shaking their heads. They are dismissing the seriousness of what some of his actions, or actions of the cabinet ministers, will have and the serious implications that will have on Canadian democracy.

The trust for what our democratic system is needs to be at the very forefront of everything we do. Democracy is fragile and the failure to recognize that could have disastrous consequences for the future of our country.

We see numerous examples from the Prime Minister's conduct, whether it be the numerous ethics violations, or the contemptuous way he treats Parliament and the will of Parliament, especially during a minority. It was not bad when the government was in the majority status because there was a level of control exerted, but ever since losing that, there has been a massive deterioration that has taken place.

We have seen time and time again the disregard for ethics, disregard for effective leadership and the absolute disregard for morals and ethics through cabinet decisions. It has been incredibly tragic and an erosion of trust within government.

There have been international embarrassments. Even this past weekend, when Bloomberg reported that the Prime Minister piped up and said he could be the dean of the G7 to help negotiate between the United Kingdom and Europe. The sense that I got when reading the response of international players was one that clearly shows that Canada is not taken seriously on the international stage. We see examples of judicial interference, and cabinet ministers being—

[Privilege, June 16th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague touched on a number of important points, and a number of Conservative speeches over the last couple of hours have emphasized a couple of very important things. One specific and unprecedented thing is twofold. First, opposition parties and the majority of parliamentarians are united in the belief that the actions of the government are contemptuous. Second, this is once again a demonstration of the serious need to ensure that all aspects, agencies and institutions of government are accountable to Parliament, given the supremacy of Parliament within our democratic system. These are two unprecedented things that have been demonstrated here today.

I ask the member to comment on how unfortunate it is to see the Liberals using this as an opportunity to try to play politics and pivot away from being found in contempt of Canadian democracy.

[Privilege, June 16th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, the member touched on a number of very important points about why this debate is important and how concerning the flippant nature of the Liberals is on this very serious issue.

I would, however, like to ask the member a specific question. The government has referred this issue to NSICOP. Some of the concerns that have been brought up are related to the structure of that committee, which is a committee of parliamentarians and not a committee of this House. This is a manifestation of some of the concerns that were brought forward when the initial act that created NSICOP was debated, and how the pinnacle of what was claimed to be accountability was left in the hands of the Prime Minister.

I wonder if the hon. member for St. John's East would have further comments on that.

[Privilege, June 16th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I found it very interesting to listen to the member's speech. His speech emphasizes the exact point that the government is contemptuous of the very idea of what Parliament represents, and that is democracy. It is telling that he wanted to talk about everything other than the fact that the government has done everything it can to obstruct, limit access and ensure that Canadians do not get the answers that the majority of parliamentarians want.

The member keeps saying that somehow partisanship is driving this. My constituents would suggest very much otherwise. I will not use the unparliamentary language that the member used to describe Conservative actions, but Canadians are tired of politicians playing politics. The member's conduct is exactly what Canadians are sick and tired of.

I would ask the member to take some responsibility for the fact that we find ourselves in a position where we are debating the absolute contempt that the member and the government have shown for Canadian democracy.

[The Environment, June 14th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, a fixed-income senior recently shared how he was excited about the new Canada greener homes grant to upgrade his coal-fired furnace. His excitement quickly turned to disappointment after learning the details of the program. With the rising cost of living, he cannot afford to pay up front for the pre and post EnerGuide evaluations, let alone front the cost to replace the furnace itself.

This is yet another example of the “Ottawa knows best” bureaucratic-heavy policy that clearly misses the mark. It makes great talking points, but leaves regular folks behind. When will the Liberals actually figure out a plan that helps Canadians?

[Combatting Tax Evasion, June 9th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, this point of order originates from question period today, where the Prime Minister, in his final round of answering questions from the Leader of the Opposition, spoke specifically about the structure of NSICOP.

I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to table, in both official languages, a segment of the recent Standing Committee on Public Safety committee meeting where the chair of NSICOP outlined very clearly that NSICOP is not so much an oversight committee as it is a review committee. I would ask for unanimous consent to table this document in both official languages.

[Petitions, June 7th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be able to present two petitions today on behalf of independent travel advisers in my constituency.

The petitioners would like this House to know that there are 12,000 independent travel advisers across Canada who have been largely without income for more than a year because of the implications of the COVID travel restrictions due to the pandemic. Many federal assistance programs such as CEBA, CERS, CEWS and the RRRF exclude the majority of these small business owners, leaving them to slip through the cracks.

The first of these two petitions ask the Government of Canada to provide sector-specific funding for independent travel advisers and extend the qualifications of the RRRF in urban areas to include sole proprietors.

The second petition I am presenting to the House today is very simple. These independent travel advisers are asking that the CRB for travel advisers be extended six months past the lifting of all travel advisories, as the income they specifically receive is 100% based on commission, and it takes approximately that long for them to start receiving those commissions.