Nathan Cullen

[Member for Brampton East, November 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister chose to appoint the member for Brampton East to the very powerful finance committee. While there, he used his access to senior Finance officials and money laundering experts to ask very troubling questions. I will quote:

How many resources does FINTRAC have to go after each little $10,000 transaction? If I'm money laundering, I'm not doing transactions in the millions to catch attention. I'm doing them at the $10,000, $15,000 limit to get away with it.

Those questions were so disturbing they raised red flags with the RCMP.

Did the Prime Minister or anyone in his office find those question so disturbing that they acted upon them?

[Points of Order, November 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much, first, for clarifying. As far as we in this chamber know, the member for Brampton East continues to hold his seat in Parliament.

The second part of the question was whether the government House leader had left the House in error in reporting that he had resigned in her replies to the comments and questions we have been consistently asking about the situation of the member for Brampton East. She has several times indicated that she agreed with his sentiment to resign. If that is not, in fact, true, and she does not have any extra knowledge of that fact, she should simply clarify the record for all Canadians.

[Points of Order, November 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, this question and response left me with some concern and confusion as well. My understanding is that any member of Parliament who seeks to resign has to notify one person in one office in writing, and that is your office, Mr. Speaker, to officially resign that seat.

We have a Liberal member from Montreal who has had some problems doing that since the spring. We had this recent case just last week. The member for Brampton East indicated it through the Prime Minister's official site and I believe also through the government House leader's comments here today that “it was agreed that his decision to resign...was the right one.”

Mr. Speaker, first, could you clarify for us if you have received notice from the member for Brampton East that he in fact has resigned that seat, and if he has not resigned that seat, could you call upon the government House leader to clarify the record from the beginning of this very concerning affair that now involves an Ethics Commissioner investigation and a RCMP investigation?

The government has had difficulty being consistent and truthful to Canadians about this very worrisome affair. Continuing to contribute to that confusion does not help anyone, and it certainly does not help us get closer to the truth in this matter.

I call upon you, Mr. Speaker, to clarify the reality for all Canadians.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 26th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the government did go out and buy a 65-year-old pipeline for $4.5 billion. No one could have conceived of that.

There is something interesting missing in those 850-odd pages of the budget. It is the money needed to build this new pipeline the Prime Minister keeps talking about. The Liberals actually have a line for the Trans Mountain pipeline, and in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021, the figure they have associated with building that new pipeline is zero dollars. That is curious, because the Prime Minister keeps saying that he is going to build this pipeline, yet he has accounted zero dollars to do it. Besides the question of whether it is a good idea to nationalize parts of the oil industry, it is more than curious.

I am looking at the finance minister's own numbers. At the end of last week, the finance minister said that it was the strongest wage growth in years, and he claimed to have facts in hand that showed that wage growth has increased dramatically. However, according to his own departmental statistics, from September 2015 to September of 2018, inflation was 5.2% and wages grew by 4.9%. Wage growth has not even kept pace with inflation. It seems pretty condemning of the finance minister's record that this is true and that he misrepresents the facts to Canadians.

I wonder if my friend can comment.

[Privilege, November 26th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will not take too much of the House's time. I simply want to add to the question of privilege I raised earlier with respect to a member of Parliament. My friend from Yukon asked what aspect of the question of privilege I was raising. I thought some clarification for the Speaker's office and for you, Madam Speaker, would be helpful in the decision we believe is forthcoming.

This pertains to the member of Parliament for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel. This is the member of Parliament who got up in this place last spring, in April, and said he was resigning his seat. We all clapped, I suppose, and congratulated him and assumed that was the end of it. We then found out in the subsequent month that he had in fact not resigned his seat. He continued to occupy the seat but did not show up to work. He continued to receive his pay and benefits as a member of Parliament, but did not show up. He could not make the two-hour train trip from Montreal. Some of us in this place make a great deal longer trip to be here.

What I wish to clarify is that the breach of privilege I am speaking of is not any personal infringement of my privileges. I am not unable to do my job as a member of Parliament as a result, but I refer instead to a category of privilege that affects this entire place. On page 148 of Bosc and Gagnon, 3rd edition, it states that a question of privilege can concern a matter which either infringes upon a member's ability to do their job, or appears to be a contempt against the dignity of Parliament. That is specifically what we are talking about here, the second category, the dignity of this place, which suffers often from political scandal, misappropriation of funds or just bad behaviour by some members of Parliament. We seek to protect the reputation of this place, and when a member of Parliament conducts themself in a way that infringes upon that reputation, I believe it is incumbent upon all of us to seek some remedy.

The remedy is that we appeal to the Speaker's office to find a prima facie case of a breach of privilege that then passes to the procedure and House affairs committee, which can then bring forward whatever witnesses it deems necessary—certainly, the MP for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, as well as others who might have some information. It concerns the reputation of this place and the respect for the principle of representation that operates at the very heart of our democracy. As Canadians lose faith with and a favourable view of the House of Commons in general, it makes all that we do more difficult to do.

The only place that can eventually find contempt and seek some remedy, either a suspension or expulsion from the House, is the House of Commons itself. We rely on the procedure and House affairs committee, where all recognized parties are represented, to bring forward the evidence and make its recommendation back to us. That is our process. However, I sincerely believe this goes beyond any partisanship. This is simply about our doing our jobs as members of Parliament, because we pass across the stage but for a moment, and it is up to us to make sure that we leave the place a little better than we found it, and when bad behaviour is not considered and goes unpunished, that reflects badly on all of us.

I wanted very much to clarify that particular point, the reputation of Parliament, of the House of Commons, which is the privilege we believe has been breached. That is what we are appealing to the Speaker.

I know a colleague from the Conservatives spoke in favour of, and many colleagues from the Liberals at least applauded, the effort we were making to address this issue, which I personally have not seen.

The House is very compassionate, and has shown itself to be so when members of Parliament fall ill, or a near and dear relative, like a spouse or a child, falls ill and a member cannot be here. We also understand that members of Parliament are away from time to time doing parliamentary business. That is also fine, of course, because that is the duty. Therefore, I would say that while we are not lenient, we are compassionate when dealing with this. What few arguments we have heard from this member in particular, in his speech in April of this past year, seven months ago, was that he was quitting, and that was it. We have heard nothing since. Now, we have seen from some media commentary, from posts he has made in the media, that maybe he is quitting in January or February. That will be nine months at least in which he said he was no longer doing the work, or has not done the work, that we are aware of, and certainly has not been here, and yet has been compensated as a member of Parliament. For working Canadians, that is not an experience they are familiar with. If they go to their boss and say they are quitting and say goodbye, that is usually the end of it. They do not continue to receive a salary for not showing up to work.

Members of Parliament, of course, have some latitude because of the complexities sometimes of our jobs and lives, but only so much latitude. If we do not act on this behaviour, we are simply condoning it by our inaction. That is not to anyone's benefit, regardless of their political persuasion.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this time today. I know that we will resume debate, and I appreciate being able to add to this discussion.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 26th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, to correct my Liberal friend, it was the Speaker ruling on this and some other Liberal omnibus bills, chastising the government for cramming things into them that had nothing to do with the budget. The government then had to break up the omnibus budget bill. This was something the Liberals criticized very strongly, as New Democrats did too. There are some bills that have to be more extensive in dealing with the budget, but governments tend to fall for the temptation of sneaking things in. The Harper government did it before. The Liberals have now been chastised twice within this session alone.

I have a specific question about General Motors, because it is very much in all of our hearts and minds. Thousands of jobs were affected today by the decision by GM. I think it is a cowardly decision and showed very little respect for the community in Oshawa and the people of Ontario in its timing and the way it was done.

In 2009, the Canadian and Ontario governments loaned GM $9.5 billion and acquired some of its shares. Then it ended up losing almost $3 billion in reselling those shares. In 2014, the Auditor General of Canada found out that GM could not account for how than more than half a billion dollars of that money was used. The whole point of the public bailout was to save jobs.

In October, Export Development Canada showed a one billion dollar outstanding loan to General Motors that now apparently is going to be written off.

With all of these billions and billions of dollars going to sometimes profitable, sometimes not profitable, companies which then decide to pull up their stakes, Canadians are wondering what accountability there is. What responsibility is there back to the taxpayers who only loaned or gave this money with the intent and the knowledge that it would somehow be protecting jobs, particularly when a company like GM decided today to pull out and leave two and a half thousand families without work or income?

[Privilege, November 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege, which I notified your office about two and a half hours ago. It involves the quite unusual case of the member of Parliament for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

As you know, under our Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker, there are very few prescriptions on what a member of Parliament must do to perform his or her duties, but there is one at least that we try to hold each other to account, and that is Standing Order 15, which requires members of Parliament to attend to their duties on Parliament Hill in the House of Commons, representing their constituents. There are, of course, exceptions to this. Members of Parliament sometimes have parliamentary duties, delegations, travelling around the country or outside of Canada, and they may be on official business. However, that is not the case, to the best of our knowledge, with the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

If you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the last we heard was a statement by the member. I can remember him giving essentially his farewell speech last April 25, I believe. He was congratulated by members in the House and people from the opposition wished him good luck and best of luck in his future endeavours. To my knowledge, that was the last we heard of it. It happens from time to time that members of Parliament choose not to continue to work as members of Parliament and go on do something else.

It was much to my surprise, and perhaps to the surprise of many members of Parliament, that since that April date, while the member of Parliament has not performed his duties as a member of Parliament, he has still been a member of Parliament. He did not give notice of his resignation nor did he stop receiving the many benefits, including salary, which he is entitled to as a member of Parliament of the House of Commons. We find this quite extraordinary. I am sure there have been cases somewhere in the past, but I have not heard of them.

Typically, things come up in life. Sometimes it can be medical reasons or other things that we are all quite compassionate about and that we then reach out with much sympathy for an MP or his or her family. However, we have no knowledge of that in this case. The only thing that you, Mr. Speaker, have heard and that I have heard in terms of evidence is that last statement of April 25 from the member from Montreal, saying that he was finishing and quitting. However, that has not been true.

We have social media posts and whatnot. We have some suggestion of a special assignment that he was sent on by the Prime Minister, which the Prime Minister's Office has rejected, or at the very least not acknowledged. That is certainly not sufficient to qualify him under any of the rules that we have. The privilege is quite straightforward. The rules that guide us in terms of attendance are quite straightforward.

My concern is that allowing this type of behaviour to not be considered, we as members of Parliament are simply saying that it is fine that an MP can take his or her seat, duly elected from his or her constituency, and then just not show up for work but still receive pay, the ability to travel and all of those other things that are meant to allow us to do our jobs on behalf of the people we represent. If someone can simply not show up yet receive all of those benefits and we as members of Parliament and you as Speaker simply say that it is fine, then essentially we are condoning that behaviour.

While Canadians' opinion of politicians and members of Parliament go up and down over the years, as I am sure you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, and too often more down, then we must be invested with the effort to try to raise expectations, at the very least the expectation of showing up to work. Other Canadians in any other jobs, if they had gone into work in April and said that they were quitting and then for the next seven months did not show up for work but still received their pay, most Canadians would expect some sort of consequence to that. We have rules that do govern us, and we believe those rules should apply.

Therefore, I rise on the tool that I am able to use here today, on a question of privilege, which I then defer to you, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration. If that is accepted, we would then send the matter, with some urgency, to the procedure and House affairs committee so it could hear proper testimony, evidence, from the member of Parliament and from whomever has any information about this. We would simply shine a light on this behaviour. Is there a viable reason for the member's absence for the last seven months, and two months more, and as best as we know, when he plans to resign? However, neither your office nor the Clerk's office has any notice of an actual resignation.

If the member is saying that for nine months he just does not have to come to work, but there is a reason for it, then we can hear that testimony. The procedure and House affairs committee, in my opinion, would be the best committee to judge what has to happen next, whether that be suspension or any of the other methods it has.

To me, this seems like a pretty clear-cut case of someone breaching one of the relatively few rules we have as members of Parliament, because we do have some latitude in how we perform our duties. Not every MP does it the same. My goodness, one of the basic standards should be showing up. If the MPs simply do not show up, then the 100,000 or 130,000 people they represent do not have a voice. That is the way this works. No one else can represent them. No one else can vote on their behalf. When somebody simply says, “Well, I am entitled to this position and I don't have to show up to it” then that sends the worst of all possible messages to Canadians and Canadian voters.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will take our letter under consideration, that you will look at this as a clear-cut case of privilege, that we can expeditiously move this toward the procedure and House affairs committee, which I think is the most appropriate committee of the House, and that we can say to not just all the MPs but to all Canadians that we take this work seriously. MPs come here with the best of intentions and, ideally, with the best work ethic possible. To simply condone or ignore behaviour that falls far short of that standard would be an indication that we as a collective House simply do not feel this is important. I do not believe that is true.

[Petitions, November 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by some 200 people from Smithers and Telkwa and Babine Lake describing their frustration and concern over Bill C-27, which is a pension bill the government introduced at one point but that we have not seen for some time.

Their concern is about moving the defined benefit plans people have been paying into for, in some cases, their entire working lives out to targeted benefit plans, which, of course, is a great reduction in their pensions. Many of these petitioners are not public servants but are supporting public servants and others who have paid into these pension plans with the clear expectation that the law would be followed. They reject Bill C-27 and hope the government continues to ignore its existence.

[Ethics, November 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, for months worrisome allegations were being raised about the conduct of the Liberal MP for Brampton East. The Prime Minister issued a statement citing that were serious personal challenges, significant gambling debts, and potential and serious conflicts of interest. Now an investigation by our own Ethics Commissioner, as well as an investigation by the RCMP and FINTRAC, raises even more serious questions.

Canadians want to know the answer to one very important question from the Prime Minister, and only he is fit to answer it. When did the Prime Minister first know of these serious allegations and what did he do about them?

[Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services Operations Legislation, November 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the motivations of the Liberals throughout this entire debate has been insensitive to the working rights of people across this country. I heard a comment from my friend in the middle of his speech where he said that unions are right to try to flex their muscles.

What is happening with our postal workers right now across this country is they are standing up for the basic conditions of labour rights in this country which are constitutionally protected. This is not some sort of muscle-flexing exercise on behalf of postal workers. They are defending their constitutionally protected right to have free and fair bargaining which Liberals undermined when they indicated several weeks ago that they would be prepared to introduce the legislation which we have here today.

I am wondering if my friend understands the fundamental principle of free and fair collective bargaining protected in our constitutional rights which the Liberals are undermining when they introduce legislation like this. They are thereby undermining the whole process because management knows the Liberals are going to have management's back if it is in some sort of dispute with workers, especially when workers are fighting for rights not only for themselves, but for workers right across this country.