Michelle Rempel

[Privilege, October 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, let me do something that I do not do on a regular basis, which is to quote the leader of the Green Party, who said the same thing that many other people have said in the House of Commons today, which is that she did not find any intellectual basis for the constitutional argument. That is because there is none.

It is such as stretch to argue that it is truth because the government that is trying to hide the documents says it is truth. I know that the member opposite has served for a long time in my home province of Manitoba's legislature. He has, I believe, a daughter who has served for a long time as well in the legislature. At some point, I hope he looks inside and says that he cannot support the PMO and the party leader.

I hope that in that moment, instead of coming in here and saying those sorts of ridiculous things, he has some self-respect and perhaps buys himself a nice lunch instead of coming here to try to say things and convince us of things that we know in our hearts are not true.

[Privilege, October 3rd, 2024]

I hear grumbles on the other side, but it has to be said.

Mr. Speaker, we either respect the rules of this place, the privileges of parliamentarians and the will of Parliament, or we live in a state that is not a democracy. Again, the Liberal government has repeatedly done this. It has repeatedly refused the will of Parliament. Also, frankly, we have had people called to the bar of this place to be admonished for carrying out the will of the government and obfuscating the will of Parliament, which is unprecedented. I think it happened maybe over 100 years ago.

When I talk about my power and my privileges and where those come from, they come from the people I represent and the rules of this place. I have to remind members of the governing party who do not hold a government position, a position in the executive, that it is their role to also hold the government to account. I understand partisanship, and I understand party whips, but there is a point at which people have to look up the food chain and have constructive dissent to say that something is not right and it is not the will of their constituents. They need to say that they are here to uphold their constituents' interests. I have done that from time to time in this place because I know where my power comes from, and I will not cede that power in any way, shape or form.

It is very disappointing for me to watch members of the governing party, who have been here for a hot minute, as they were elected in 2015, but who have never had to challenge their party in any meaningful way. This is a critical juncture, when they are behind a feckless leader who cannot tell right from wrong in any circumstance. He is literally just trying to find a better job, which he is not going to find. That is why he is clinging to power so desperately. At that point in time, that caucus should be challenging him on everything that he does because he has led his party into a state of moral oblivion.

It is the moral responsibility of the members of the governing party, as the backbenchers in that party, to say that they are not doing this, and at the very least, to do it on this issue. I hear members literally reading off the PMO-approved questions for the day to try to suggest that carrying out the will of Parliament is somehow a charter violation. Come on. It is also their privilege that was breached, by the way, and all of their constituents' privileges that were breached. This is why they will lose their seats in the next election. Why is that? It is because their constituents are losing the sense that they are willing to stand up for them no matter what the PMO says, no matter what the party leader says, and they see they do not have that sense of right from wrong.

This is a pretty clear case of right and wrong. It really is. We have people from very disparate political backgrounds in this place, from the left of the spectrum to the right of the spectrum, saying that we might not agree on policy, and we might not agree on how to deal with an emergent issue, but we are going to agree on one thing, which is that, if this country is supposed to carry out its business to live in a peaceful pluralism, then the rules of this place have to function. They absolutely have to function, and they are not functioning.

That is why we are debating the motion that is before us today. It has been encouraging to hear members of different political stripes say that we can disagree on much but that they are going to agree to uphold the rules of this place. The question then becomes this: At what point do other members of this place stop propping up a government that continues, time and again, day in and day out, to ignore the rules? The government just says that they do not apply to it. It does not even look for ways out or for loopholes; it just ignores the rules of this place. Again, this is not the first time; it is one of countless instances. I have given only two here.

The Prime Minister has breached ethics violations. Members filibuster privilege motions just so they cannot move forward. It is in those moments that the number one priority for all of us who do not hold a government appointment and are not part of the executive branch of government is to hold the government to account. That might be in a caucus meeting or whatnot, but at some point in time we have to say “no, not today, you guys”.

I am hoping there will be members of the Liberal backbench who, at the very least, would do one of two things: abstain on the motion if they cannot find the courage to vote for it, or at least not ask questions that have been repeated by the government House leader. I like to see women in strong roles in the House of Commons; I think it inspires other women to do the same. However, I do not like to hear them repeat the talking points of a feckless man who clearly has lost the moral authority to govern. It is disappointing to me. I also hope that some of the cabinet ministers will think, will look within their heart and will say that they are tired of doing this and that they will not do it anymore.

I have said why it is so important for us to vote in favour of the motion. However, I also understand, as so many people in this place have said, that because we are having to debate another instance of the government's flagrantly dismissing the privileges of the people in this place, we are not debating the business of making life more affordable for Canadians, making it more safe for Canadians to live within their homes and trying to find homes for Canadians. Many do not have a home. There was a report today that said that within eight years the rent in Montreal for, I think, a two-bedroom apartment would be close to $5,000. That would be the average rent in under a decade.

We are on a course of abject failure in this country, but we cannot address any of the issues and have a constructive debate if the rules of this place are not being followed. Therefore I ask the government to end this today by handing the documents over, obeying the will of this place and respecting our democracy so we can move on, on behalf of our constituents.

[Privilege, October 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, some of my constituents have written to me asking, “Why is the Liberal government grinding the business of Parliament to a halt?” They have seen reports of the Liberal government doing this. I will break down what is happening here today, why it is so crazy that the Liberal government is allowing this and then what Parliament should be doing in response.

What is happening here? We are debating a motion. This whole process of how we got here started on June 10, when the House of Commons adopted a motion calling for the production of various documents related to SDTC to be turned over to the RCMP for review. For people who might not be familiar with what this means, I will summarize it briefly, and then give a little bit more information afterwards.

On Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, the Leader of the Opposition summarized the problem very succinctly in a question yesterday when he said that a top government executive took $400 million of other people's money and then gave it to their own companies, which is problematic. My colleague for South Shore—St. Margarets and members of the industry committee and the ethics committee have been pulling at the threads of this scandal for over a year now, and they have uncovered a massive conflict of interest that the RCMP should be looking at.

This is what happened: Parliament passed a motion to send documents related to the scandal to the RCMP. Parliament passed the motion, so it is essentially law that the documents that Parliament ordered be sent to the RCMP, and Parliament is supreme. In response to that motion, which was adopted by the House, government departments either outright refused the House order or redacted the documents that they turned over, citing various provisions. However, they actually ignored what the House order said to do.

Again, to re-emphasize it, this was a duly passed motion of the House of Commons. This was not some random demand, but a motion that was debated in the House of Commons and passed by the House of Commons, so it is essentially law. The motion was to force these government departments to submit these documents over. However, what did they do? They flipped the bird at Parliament, saying, “Uh-uh, we're not sending this over”, which raises a whole host of questions about why government departments would not be sending incriminating documents over to the RCMP. Anybody who is watching this should understand that this is highly problematic. It is also problematic because it breaches members' privileges here. Essentially, the government is saying no to Parliament.

When parliamentarians understood what had happened, the Conservative House leader raised something called a question of privilege. He essentially was asserting that the House's privilege had been breached because the government had not complied with the previous House order, which was the motion that was passed to compel those documents.

Why is this important? It is important because what the government did here was to say that it would not turn over incriminating documents to the RCMP on a major scandal, in spite of the House voting to do so. However, the Conservative House leader then said that the privileges of this place, or the rights that we have when we are all representing people, in my case, roughly 120,000, were violated because the order of the House was not complied with.

For somebody who might find that this sounds too technical, it is basically like looking at something in the Criminal Code and saying, “Well, I'm going to do that anyway, and you can't punish me.” With that question of privilege, the Speaker ruled that privilege had indeed been breached and that this was a problem, which is a good thing, and where we are today.

We have a motion in front of the House as a result of this whole rigmarole. Just to be perfectly clear, the government could have prevented all of this, this entire waste of resources. We can think about how much time has been wasted in trying to force the government to do something that it should have done already. How could it fix this? It could just hand the documents over. It could hand the documents over, per the law that was passed in this place. However, no, here we are today. We are now debating a motion that would refer this whole matter to a standing committee for review.

Essentially, what the Liberals are trying to do here is rag the puck on handing over incriminating documents that the House has already ordered them to turn over. The other thing that is absolutely bananas and ludicrous to me, completely bonkers crackers time, is that the government is trying to say that this is somehow a breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights. However, other colleagues in this place have done a masterful job of explaining that Parliament is supreme. By that, I mean that Parliament makes the laws in this place. We have legislative authority in this place.

If we back up, I looked through the record to read some of the arguments that happened during that debate, and there is a reason the House had this production of documents ordered. Why is that? It is because there is a big scandal going on, and we want transparency for our constituents. We want the process that led to this scandal to be fixed. We want to ensure that anybody who was involved in perpetrating the scandal faces consequences. Why? There are several reasons.

As legislators, we have fiduciary responsibilities for tax dollars. This was a giant debacle that wasted tax dollars. Also, when somebody breaks the rules or breaks the law, that should be examined and they should face consequences. However, here, the Liberal government is preventing that process from happening. Why is that? I think we all know why. It is because something in those documents probably points the finger directly back at the government ministers or, likely, the Prime Minister's Office.

Where have we seen this movie before? I have seen this movie before. I think Canadians have seen this movie several times before. As other colleagues in this place have mentioned, this is not the first time the Liberal government has been found to have violated the privilege of the House by withholding documents.

As mentioned, there was a huge scandal that happened in early 2021 about two employees of the level 4 biohazard lab in Winnipeg. When I say this, it sounds so crazy, but it is true. They were alleged to have, and found to have had, transferred samples of viruses back to China. These two people were in a biohazard lab where some of the world's most deadly viruses were, such as Ebola and Marburg, and they transferred samples of said viruses back to China.

The House ordered the production of documents around that issue. Again, in that situation, the government flipped the bird to Parliament and said it was not handing those documents over, no way, no how. It actually went so far as to sue your office, Mr. Speaker. The government actually sued the Speaker of the House of Commons to delay the transfer of these documents.

What ended up happening with these documents? Just to refresh everybody's memories, instead of handing the documents over, the Prime Minister called an early election in 2021, which wiped the table of Parliament at that point. It bought him time. The point here is that the government has a pattern of completely dismissing the privileges that we hold in the House of Commons.

Over my time in Parliament, I have learned a lot of tough lessons, but there has been one guiding principle through all of this for me, and that is that my power comes from nowhere else than from the people who I represent, combined with the rules and sanctity of this place, particularly through privilege.

Therefore, when my privilege as a parliamentarian is violated, so are all the privileges of my constituents. That is why it is so important for us to push on these issues. If we live in a world where the government can just willfully ignore the duly instructed outcomes of a legislative body, where all of us are duly elected and have responsibilities to our constituents, if the government can just ignore us, then this is not a democracy but a dictatorship. We are not far from that at this point. It is not hyperbole to say that, by the government delaying the will of Parliament, it is eroding and weakening democracy.

[Privilege, October 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it is said that Canadians will only support our democratic system if they know in their hearts that the rules of our democracy are followed in this place and that we can all represent them. It is a little wild to think that some of us represent over 120,000 people. We are one vote for 120,000 people, and the only way that carries any weight is if the rules of this place are followed. My colleague spoke about the importance of parliamentary supremacy, the right of Parliament to do so many things, and our privilege as parliamentarians.

Can he speak to what happens when the government does not allow this place to function? What is the impact on Canadians' faith in democracy?

[Mental Health and Addictions, October 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to put on the record that I am very comfortable with calling a cop killer a dirtbag.

[Government Accountability, October 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, this is another typical Liberal scandal. The Conflict of Interest Act prohibits ministers from furthering interests of their friends, which is why the act requires ministers to declare close friendships with people who lobby.

The finance minister has frequently mentioned her close personal friendship with the chair of Brookfield, who now holds a senior Liberal economic advisory position. In describing her relationship with carbon tax-promoting Mr. Carney, the minister said things like “Mark is a personal friend of mine, of very long standing” and “I speak with Mark often, he's actually my son's godfather.”

Has the minister declared her friendship with the world's—

[Government Accountability, October 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, a trillion-dollar everything corporation that is currently asking for billions of tax dollars recently faced shareholder calls for transparency after a scathing report raised questions about whether Brookfield engages in tax avoidance strategies when it comes to paying Canadian tax.

The Liberals just appointed Brookfield's board chair, carbon tax-promoting Mr. Carney, to craft Canada's economic policy. The Liberals will not say whether they cleared this with the lobbying commissioner. Are the concerns Brookfield's shareholders had about tax transparency the reason why?

[Situation in Lebanon and Israel, October 1st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, as a legislator in this country, it is not about one group or another for me. It is not about Jew or Muslim, Christian or Hindu. It is about the fact that for us to maintain our pluralism in this country, we have to focus on our sovereign rights as Canadians. That means upholding democratic values around the world and not equivocating or pretending we can appease regimes that have stated intent to destroy our pluralism.

I love every member of my community deeply. I know how much the Palestinian community is hurting and I understand how much fear the Jews in my community feel; however, for me to represent them as a Canadian legislator, I have to first stand for their sovereign rights, and that means standing with democratic allies, like Israel.

[Situation in Lebanon and Israel, October 1st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, here is what I know is not up for debate. The terrorist regime in Tehran has said death to all Jews; end to the state of Israel. That sounds like a genocidal intent to me. Then you have Hamas, which also said death to all Jews and then it decided to kill a few thousand Jews. Then it said, no, we still want to kill more Jews and we do not want Israel to exist. Their supporters, including those here in Canada, mourn. They are out there essentially saying that what happened on October 7 is justified. To me, that is genocidal activity. That is what this place needs to be concerned with, and we need to support Israel and its right to defend itself.

[Situation in Lebanon and Israel, October 1st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada absolutely supports international law. That is why we reject, denounce and condemn Iran, the terrorist genocide regime in Tehran, sending missiles at innocent civilians in Israel. Hamas murdering thousands of Jews sounds like a pretty big violation of international law to me. I reject that. I absolutely reject all of that.

We need international law to enforce things like UN Security Resolution 1701, which the UN has clearly failed to do. The UN has failed to enforce any law that would protect the right of Israel to exist. What the member opposite has consistently failed to do is start her questions by saying she supports the right of Israel to exist and rejects the regime in Iran, all its terrorist proxies and the terrorist activities they have subjected Jews and the entire Middle Eastern region to for years, and Canadians, Americans and countless others they have blown up in terrorist attacks that are direct violations of international law.