SoVote

Apr/28/22 10:17:33 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve the Bloc's right to respond at a later date.

17 words

All Topics

Apr/28/22 10:17:39 a.m.
Watch

Does anybody else have an intervention? We will try to return to the House as soon as practical. We know this motion is coming up for debate soon after business here, so we will try to come back with some responses as soon as is practical.

46 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/28/22 10:18:11 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition, and this return would be tabled in an electronic format.

36 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Apr/28/22 10:19:01 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-270

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-270, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (pornographic material). He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Calgary Shepard for seconding this bill today. I call it the SISE act, the stopping Internet sexual exploitation act. It is an honour to rise today on behalf of the victims and survivors of companies like MindGeek, which have victimized women and girls across this country and across the world. It is great to reintroduce this bill. I introduced it in the last Parliament as well. For years, online pornographic platforms in Canada have published sexually explicit material without satisfying any requirement for verifying the age or consent of those depicted in it. As a result, horrific videos of sex trafficking, child exploitation and sexual assault have proliferated on Canadian pornographic websites. This has to stop. The SISE act would implement recommendation 2 of the 2021 ethics committee report on MindGeek by requiring those making or distributing pornographic material for a commercial purpose to verify the age and consent of each person depicted. It would also prohibit the distribution of this material when consent has been withdrawn. Consent matters. If a website is going to profit from the making or publishing of content, the SISE act would ensure that they must verify the age and consent of every individual in every video. Once a video of exploitation has been uploaded, it is virtually impossible to eliminate. We must prevent these videos from ever reaching the Internet in the first place, and the SISE act would help put the burden of due diligence and corporate responsibility on companies rather than survivors.

279 words

All Topics

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Apr/28/22 10:21:33 a.m.
Watch

moved that the third report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, presented on Tuesday, March 31, 2022, be concurred in. He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. Just so everyone knows, he lives in Brockville. He has one of the biggest handles in the entire chamber. In my role as shadow minister for ethics, a position that I have had for just a few weeks, it has been an incredibly busy time. It comes down to the fact that the Liberals have had quite the record of scandals during their tenure in government. We were reminded earlier this week of the unethical behaviour of the Prime Minister in that he was found, four times, by the former Ethics Commissioner, Mary Dawson, being in contravention of the Conflict of Interest Act. He was guilty of violating and contravening sections 5, 11, 12 and 21 of the Conflict of Interest Act for taking an illegal vacation. We now know, from the beginning of this week, that the Prime Minister was also investigated by the RCMP for fraud against the government under paragraph 121(1)(c) of the Criminal Code for that illegal vacation on a private island. We also know that the Prime Minister was found guilty of contravening section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act over his interference in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin and the unnecessary interference and his concerted campaign to pressure the former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Jody Wilson-Raybould, into offering SNC-Lavalin a special plea deal, what is called a deferred prosecution agreement. We have to remember that Jody Wilson-Raybould stood on her principles, stood up for justice, refused to interfere and, because of that, lost her job as the Attorney General of Canada. The Treasury Board president of the day, Jane Philpott, was also fired from cabinet. Both of them were kicked out of the Liberal caucus by the Prime Minister. We know that this scandal in itself had huge overreaching impacts on the Liberal Party. We know that the principal secretary to the Prime Minister, Gerald Butts, had to resign, along with the Clerk of the Privy Council at the time, Michael Wernick, who also resigned in disgrace. As I go through this, I go to Bill Morneau, the former Minister of Finance, whom I am going to talk about in just a bit. Along with that, there is also the former Minister of Fisheries, who is now the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities and the MP for Beauséjour, who was caught up in the lucrative clam scam agreement when he ensured that family members, using nepotism, were awarded lucrative contracts worth over $24 million. When we talk about Mr. Morneau, the contents of the report that the ethics committee did, tabled here a month ago, and the report tabled in the previous Parliament, concentrated on Bill Morneau and the WE scandal, but even going into that, Bill Morneau as the finance minister was also found guilty of contravening the Conflict of Interest Act for failing to disclose that he had a luxurious villa in the French countryside. He refused to disclose that to the Ethics Commissioner for two years. The Liberals have a long history of scandal. As we just witnessed with the Prime Minister's failure on the issue of his private vacation and being four times guilty under the Conflict of Interest Act and investigated for fraud against the government under the Criminal Code, we do not know if the RCMP investigated Bill Morneau over the WE scandal and the contents of the report that we tabled on March 31, on which I also got up on a question of privilege, as you may recall, Mr. Speaker. We have to remember that Mr. Morneau failed to recuse himself from the cabinet table when decisions were made about awarding the WE Charity over half a billion dollars, and gave it preferential treatment. Mr. Morneau allowed his ministerial staff to work directly with the WE Charity, help them develop their proposals and intervene on behalf of WE at federal, provincial and municipal levels to deliver a program that was beyond WE's capabilities, as we found out through testimony. Additionally, Mr. Morneau failed to talk about how his own daughter worked for the WE foundation. In the wake of this WE scandal, and in the wake of the work that was done by the ethics committee in the previous Parliament, Mr. Morneau was removed from cabinet. However, it was not just Mr. Morneau who was caught up in this scandal: We know that there were at least 10 videos made by WE that involved the Prime Minister, and we know those were produced by Door Knocker Media and were worth over $217,000, yet the Prime Minister was not investigated by Elections Canada on third-party endorsement and third-party expenditures for campaign-style video productions. We know for a fact that the Prime Minister made a campaign statement in one of the videos, where he said, “I pledge to work hard for all Canadians.” This is something we hear in the House every day and heard just yesterday during question period with the Prime Minister. He always says he is working here for all Canadians. He also said that he was going to “invest in our youngest leaders: you”. That was a promise to soon-to-be voters, and it was clearly a political message he used in those videos paid for by the WE Charity. We know that the Prime Minister's wife, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, received over $20,000 for a weekend getaway in London for the WE Day the organization held in 2020. Just weeks before that, WE was given a contract for half a billion dollars to deliver the Canada student service grant: something that was specifically designed by the Government of Canada, orchestrated by Bill Morneau and implicated by the Prime Minister in ensuring that it was delivered through the WE Charity, which was an organization that had never done anything working with students at this scale during a pandemic. These facts appear a clear conflict of interest, and have severely damaged public confidence in our democratic institutions, especially here in the Parliament of Canada. During our testimony, there were calls to bring a number of witnesses who refused to attend. The House ordered, on Thursday, March 25, 2021, that Ben Chin, Rick Theis and Amitpal Singh all appear as witnesses. I want to remind everyone that Ben Chin is the senior adviser to the Prime Minister, and that he received a LinkedIn message from Craig Kielburger of WE that stated, “Hello Ben, Thank you for your kindness in helping shape our latest program with the government. Warmly, Craig”. Mr. Chin responded to Mr. Kielburger, “Great to hear from you Craig; let's get our young working”. Ben Chin refused to comply with the order of the House to appear. Rick Theis, who is also in the Prime Minister's office as the director of policy and cabinet affairs, met with the Kielburger brothers from WE on May 5, 2020, regarding this new program, and Amitpal Singh, who was an adviser to Bill Morneau in early April, suggested a youth services program would eventually be developed into a tailor-made, half-a-billion-dollar WE Charity program. All three witnesses were instructed to comply, but instead the ministers told them not to. That is contempt, and that election we just had and this new Parliament do not purge those witnesses from being held in contempt. I also want to point out that the MP for Waterloo, who at the time was the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, also perjured herself at committee. She testified that she did not discuss the half-billion-dollar program with the Kielburgers, yet in documentation submitted to the ethics committee, it was clear that she and her staff were working with the WE foundation. As members can see, when we put in the litany of scandals the current government has been plagued with, and we look at the WE Charity and the scandal here, it is important we look again at this report as well as have the ethics committee do more to study this issue.

1418 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/28/22 10:31:45 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I am not surprised that the Conservatives moved concurrence on a report. I am not surprised that they chose, once again, to have personal attacks against ministers. As the Prime Minister indicated in question period yesterday very clearly, while the Conservative Party's focus is purely on character assassination and attacking, we will continue to have our focus on the interests of Canadians. We just finished having a serious debate on the budget bill, and there is so much more that is out there. I am wondering this. Will the member reflect on the types of political games that he is playing? These are at the expense of having good, sound debate on a wide variety of issues, whether it is the war in Europe, budgetary measures or even what it is we were supposed to be debating today.

142 words

All Topics

Mr. James Bezan

Apr/28/22 10:32:49 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the member for Winnipeg North wants to avoid accountability. I am not surprised that the member for Winnipeg North wants to be the chief cheerleader to help cover up the Prime Minister's, and this government's, unethical behaviour and the possibility that some of it may even be criminal these days, when we look at the investigation by the RCMP into fraud against the government by the Prime Minister himself—

79 words

All Topics

Mr. James Bezan

Apr/28/22 10:33:33 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am getting heckled by the member for Winnipeg North. Again, as the chief spokesperson for lack of accountability, for cover-ups and for the unethical behaviour of this government, we can always point to the member for Winnipeg North to stand up and be there shouting the loudest.

51 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/28/22 10:33:33 a.m.
Watch

Would you say that outside?

5 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Apr/28/22 10:33:42 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there are so many things happening right now in this country. There is an overdose crisis, and a toxic drug-supply crisis that is killing people. There is a housing crisis. There are so many problems and issues that have to be resolved, such as veterans who are still waiting for their disability payments because of the backlog that started with the Conservatives. The Conservatives are delaying having really important conversations, and they have not brought forward any solutions around the issues that I have talked about, whether it is climate change, whether it is the important need to fast-track reconciliation or the failure of the government to deliver on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and the calls to justice. My question to the member is this. Why are the Conservatives continually delaying and not bringing forward solutions to solve these really important issues?

149 words

All Topics

Mr. James Bezan

Apr/28/22 10:34:32 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as we see with this unholy alliance between the NDP and the Liberals, NDP members are standing here helping to support the Liberals and later today are going to push through a motion here that undermines this democratic institution. This motion is about a three-hour debate. I am talking about how the public confidence in our institutions, including the Parliament of Canada, is being undermined by this government, and the NDP is now enabling and allowing this government to cover up this failure of accountability and this unethical behaviour. Now there is this dictatorial approach on how they are going to ram through legislation in this very chamber.

111 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Apr/28/22 10:35:13 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when I see what is happening this morning, I feel that today's debate in the House should be about ethics. A debate about WE Charity is clearly a debate about ethics. Government Motion No. 11 also has me wondering about ethics. I wonder how the NDP-Liberal coalition works, what is really going on behind the scenes and what we here in Parliament are not aware of. I wonder about the importance of being publicly accountable to the House of Commons. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the current ethics situation, in 2022, in the House of Commons.

105 words

All Topics

Mr. James Bezan

Apr/28/22 10:35:44 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, here we are wanting to talk about ethics. At the very basis of what we do in this chamber, we have to have the trust of all Canadians, and right now there is a cloud of suspicion hanging over the head of the Prime Minister. This government, this Liberal-NDP coalition, refuses to be held to account and to allow Canadians to look underneath this veil of secrecy of what exactly this Prime Minister has done, whether it comes down to his private vacations or his involvement in the WE scandal. Canadians deserve to know exactly what is up, and people need to be held accountable. If the NDP want to be here giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to the Liberals, shame on them.

129 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Apr/28/22 10:36:41 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to hear the enthusiasm from the hon. gentleman opposite and to follow the esteemed member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, as we talk again about a thematic problem for the government. While the Liberals hope, try and pray that prorogation and snap elections, at a time when the Prime Minister had promised that he would not call an election, will make those problems go away, we are here today because these concerns are real for Canadians. Canadians are concerned about the integrity of the institutions that they hold dear. I gesture this way because I talk about the government and I talk about the executive branch. It is important. We are all temporary occupants and guardians of the offices that we hold. When that is called into question, and when those offices are brought into disrepute by actions or allegations of actions, it is incumbent upon us that there be transparency and a fair hearing of that information. The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman laid it out very well. We have seen this pattern of behaviour by the Prime Minister over a number of years: He believes that the rules do not apply to him. It is the wrong message to send to Canadians, it is the wrong message to send to parliamentarians and it is also the wrong message to send to the world when we hear condemnations that have come from groups such as the OECD, when it comes to legislators from other countries, who are concerned about the appearance of corruption or corrupt practices by members of the government. In this case, specifically with respect to hearings that were had on the WE Charity scandal, we had a number of witnesses who were duly ordered to appear by a parliamentary committee. They were instructed by members of the executive, by federal cabinet ministers, not to appear at committee. They were instructed to defy a lawful order of the House. What is the precedent that sets? I can tell colleagues that on its face it is a bad one. It is that we have a government so afraid of letting the light of transparency shine that it would unroll hundreds of years of precedent and undermine the traditions, customs, practices and legal authority of this place and say those rules do not matter because they make things uncomfortable for it. That puts us in a really tough spot. I heard questions and comments to my colleague for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman asking why we would talk about this and not talk about that. This issue could have been resolved in the summer of 2020, but the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament to kill it and then set up a system where the government “ragged the puck” so that committees could not meet. This issue was then pushed forward through the fall and into the spring of 2021, and before the issue was resolved to come back in the fall of 2021, he called an election, although just that spring he had committed to not call one. All members in the House undertook to continue advocating for the priorities of Canadians, but in this case the Prime Minister had a different priority and was protecting himself from uncomfortable questions. The individuals named in that order to appear at committee must appear. It is incumbent on all members of the House to see to the completion of that work. It is an abdication of our responsibility as members, as the House of Commons, and as the Parliament of Canada not to complete our work. Are there other important issues facing this country? We can bet on that. There is fiscal mismanagement and failure to work with the provinces on important things like health care. The member for Courtenay—Alberni was talking about his coalition partners and a need for action on the opioid crisis facing this country. Hear, hear, I agree. His party had direct input and impact on what this budget looked like. New Democrats are the ones who are going to carry this budget across the goal line for the government. We can talk about that. We continue those consultations. Conservative members are continuing work on this important file, challenging the government on issues like addiction and mental health and what resources it is committing to the provinces. Is it collaborating with the provinces? Has the Prime Minister finally met with the first ministers, the premiers, to talk about what the future looks like for health care in this country? No, he has not. However, unlike the Prime Minister, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can do both of those things. We are talking about the budget; we are talking about addiction and mental health; we are talking about reconciliation with Canada's first people. We are doing a lot of things, but we are not going to forget just because the Prime Minister took the walk up to Rideau Hall, contrary to what he said he was going to do, breaking his word, breaking a promise and acting against the will of all members of this House when we passed a motion saying there would not be an election. That is part of the pattern, so we are back, dealing with it again. Liberals hope that water under the bridge and time on the clock are going to be enough that Canadians will forget, but it is about those precedent-setting behaviours that we take. When we decide that it is okay for ministers to instruct individuals who are duly and lawfully ordered to appear at committee not to appear because they do not like what they might say, what does that say? It says that we are going to cast aside all the traditions of this place. We should have gotten this done in 2020. Liberals have delayed and obstructed this from being completed. We have formed a new Parliament since then. We had an election. Most of us find ourselves in different roles. I know the member for Winnipeg North continues in his role, as was pointed out by my colleague, as the defender or apologist in chief. I have other things that I am working on, but I can also do this at the same time. It is incredibly important. In concluding my remarks, I want to underscore for all members in this place that this is important. It is important that we not allow games by the government to distract from the important role that we have as the guardians of this institution, of the rights of Canadians and of what they hold sacred, and that is trust in these democratic institutions. I move: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, presented on Thursday, March 31, 2022, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Committee for further consideration, provided that (a) the Committee be instructed (i) to make every effort possible to receive evidence from Ben Chin, Rick Theis and Amitpal Singh, the witnesses who did not comply with this House's order of Thursday, March 25, 2021, to appear before the Committee, (ii) to consider further the concerns expressed in the report about the member for Waterloo's failure “in her obligation to be accurate with a committee”, and (iii) to report back by Monday, October 17, 2022; and (b) the Committee be empowered to order the attendance of the member for Waterloo, from time to time, as it sees fit.

1290 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/28/22 10:47:43 a.m.
Watch

The amendment is in order. Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

17 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/28/22 10:49:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, for those who are following the debate today, it is important we recognize right at the very beginning that when the member makes reference to the idea of a “game”, this is really what it is. It is the Conservative Party playing games when we should be debating the many different issues that are having an impact on Canadians every day. What would Motion No. 11 do? Why are Conservatives playing the game today? It is because Motion No. 11 would in essence allow for us to sit longer hours, so MPs have more time to debate. It is nothing new. It happens all the time, whether it is in Ottawa or the many different provincial legislatures. The reality is that the Conservatives do not want that additional time. They do not want to work. Why is my colleague across the way afraid to sit a few extra hours? I ask him to recognize how important debate is inside this chamber.

165 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Barrett

Apr/28/22 10:50:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I ask the member opposite why he is afraid to have other members on his bench speak. The member speaks more than any other member. He and the member for Kingston and the Islands have the rest of them muzzled so tight that they are not even allowed to talk in this place, so we are not going to take any lessons from the member opposite. Further, what is interesting about Motion No. 11 is that if they are talking about sitting extra hours, why does the motion stipulate that their members do not have to be here? It is just like what we saw in the last Parliament, when they would have only one person in this place, who was the member for Kingston and the Islands, because they were too afraid their members might erupt with some concern about the activities of the government and the Prime Minister, which would reflect very poorly on them. If they had not called an unnecessary election during a pandemic, we could have dealt with this two years ago.

179 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Apr/28/22 10:51:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North said we should focus on issues that are having an impact on Canadians. I think ethics is an issue that has an impact on Canadians. I think that confidence in institutions is an issue that has an impact on Canadians. What happened with the WE organization and the almost $1 billion that was given to a Liberal Party crony raises some serious questions. If we are going to talk about lobbying, since my colleague mentioned it in his presentation, the king of Canadian lobby groups is the oil and gas industry. It is the biggest lobby in Canada and controls a considerable portion of our economy. We can go further still. The emissions reduction fund was launched during the pandemic solely to support the oil and gas sector. I wonder if my colleague is as concerned as I am by oil and gas sector lobbying.

153 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Barrett

Apr/28/22 10:52:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am always concerned when we have a situation in which a group that is lobbying the government then gives a gift worth, let us say, a quarter of a million dollars to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister fails to get permission from the head of the branch of government for which he works and then satisfies all of the criteria laid out by the RCMP for a charge of fraud on government to be laid. That type of behaviour between a lobbyist and a government official is incredibly concerning, and I hope the Prime Minister will co-operate fully with the RCMP in a case like the one I mentioned.

115 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Apr/28/22 10:53:09 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to start by making clear that I am not part of any agreement with the governing party. My accountability is to my neighbours in Kitchener. I know for the hon. member, as well, the housing crisis is significant in his community. This is something that I want to make sure we are speaking about on a regular basis. As for the housing and climate crisis, we might feel differently about that, but to me this place should be focused on those kinds of issues. In his view, why is this more important than getting at the kinds of issues from housing to the poisoning crisis to the climate crisis?

113 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 60