44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2022 11:00AM
- May/30/22 4:14:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, entitled “Main Estimates 2022-23: Vote 1 under Canadian Commercial Corporation, Vote 1 under Invest in Canada Hub”.
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 4:15:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, entitled “Main Estimates 2022-23: Vote 1 under Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Vote 1 under Canadian Energy Regulator, Vote 1 under Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Votes 1, 5 and 10 under Department of Natural Resources and Vote 1 under Northern Pipeline Agency".
66 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing a bill as an amendment to the Health of Animals Act. This is very fitting with what we have seen across Canada with the spread of avian influenza, the possibility of diseases like African swine fever, and what we have gone through it in my riding with BSE. These show us how important it is to protect biosecurity on our farms and ensure that those who may endanger our farms and our farm families are held accountable for those actions, which is why I am tabling this amendment to the Health of Animals Act.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-276, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to introduce this anti-scab bill to protect workers during a strike or lockout. This is a long-standing demand of workers and unions, and I am proud that my colleague from Manicouagan supports this bill. She is a steadfast ally of working people.
It is quite simple: If we want to foster industrial peace, free bargaining, and sound and sensible labour law practices, then the right to association, the right to free bargaining and the right to strike must be guaranteed. The failure to put anti-scab provisions in place undermines the power to bargain.
Such provisions have existed in the Quebec Labour Code since 1977, and this has contributed to industrial peace. In fact, federally regulated business see twice as many strikes or long lockouts as we see in Quebec, and this is due to the absence of anti-scab legislation.
The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-276, and it is not the first. We hope that this will be a priority. It is unfortunate that it was not in the budget, but there is still time to do the right thing and act. That is where we want to go.
224 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 4:18:38 p.m.
- Watch
The following motion, in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, was put on the Order Paper:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(b), consideration by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage of all votes under Department of Canadian Heritage in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, be extended beyond May 31, 2022.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 4:19:57 p.m.
- Watch
moved that the third report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics presented on Thursday, March 31, 2022 be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to join everyone in the House virtually today, as I am still back in Manitoba. I am going to splitting my time on our third attempt to move concurrence on this report with the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.
It is interesting to note that every time we have brought this motion forward, the Liberals have adjourned debate, similar to the filibusters we saw in the 43rd Parliament when they tried to stop this report on the WE Charity scandal from coming forward to the House.
I will go into some detail on the litany of ethical breaches done by the Liberal government, but I can tell the House that in addition to the Prime Minister taking illegal vacations and being found in contravention of sections of the ethics act, sections 5, 11, 12 and 21, we know that he also was found guilty with regard to SNC-Lavalin for putting undue pressure on the then-minister of justice and attorney general, Jody Wilson-Raybould, as well as his continued breaches of ethical behaviour that we have seen from time to time, and how that has impacted other members of cabinet.
I do not need to remind the House of former minister Morneau and all the challenges he had when he was the finance minister, such as his having been found in contravention of the ethics act for having accepted an illegal gift, a vacation offered by the WE Charity.
He also forgot to recuse himself when talking about the WE Charity's delivery of the youth program that was proposed at that time. We know that he was also in conflict because his daughter worked for the WE foundation.
We need to also remind everyone of the former minister of fisheries' contravention of the ethics act through a conflict of interest, actually practising nepotism to make sure that family members received multi-million-dollar contracts in what we have called the surf clam scam.
We have a number of ethical breaches, and here we find today that the Ethics Commissioner, Mr. Dion, has opened another investigation on another Liberal cabinet minister, this time the Minister of International Trade and Small Business, for awarding a contract to a very close personal friend. That has resulted in looking at whether the minister contravened sections of the Conflict of Interest Act in her decision-making, whether she used her influence and whether she practised the duty to recuse.
I can tell the House that the minister of trade was working closely with a long-time fellow staffer back in the Wynne government days and also in the McGuinty era in Ontario, and that they are very close personal friends with the founder of Pomp and Circumstance, Amanda Alvaro.
We know that the $17,000 contract, which was gifted for two days of media training for two people, was quite costly. It does not sound like much in the big scheme of things, the way we spend money in Parliament and the way the Government of Canada spends, but when someone can get away with sole-sourcing contracts, small amounts of money like $17,000 can come to be a big amount of money. When we think about it, it was for only two days of media training for two people. There is no wonder that the Ethics Commissioner is doing the investigation on our international trade minister.
I want to again thank the ethics committee for the work that it did, both in this Parliament and in the first session the 44th Parliament, in getting this report tabled on March 31, as well as the work that was originally done on this report in the 43rd Parliament, second session, when this report was tabled originally.
There is a pile of great recommendations on how to strengthen the Lobbying Act by giving more powers to the Commissioner of Lobbying and to the Ethics Commissioner to prevent these things from happening in the future. Unfortunately, we have a situation of the current government, under the Prime Minister, continuing to violate ethics rules.
One of the key things on which I have not gone into detail in my previous interventions with respect to this motion and the third report of the ethics committee in this 44th Parliament is that three individuals who were political staffers were supposed to appear: Ben Chin, Rick Theis and Amitpal Singh. All of them were political staffers either in Minister Morneau's office or the Prime Minister's Office, and it was important for the ethics committee to hear from them specifically. They refused to appear before the ethics committee in the 43rd session. The committee was actually required to come before the House to ask for an order from the House of Commons to ensure that they would appear before the committee. Unfortunately, the House leader for the Liberal government of the day refused to allow those political staffers to appear to talk about their role in awarding a half-billion-dollar contract to the WE Charity and how those decisions were made so that we could look at how pandemic spending was being used to help out friends of the current Liberal government and specifically friends of the Prime Minister and Minister Morneau. We know they failed to appear because of the direction from the House leader of the day, who is now the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I can tell the House that this again is in contravention of our parliamentary rules.
I want to quote our former parliamentary law clerk, Mr. Robert Walsh, who said this at a previous committee hearing in the past:
...the Prime Minister, and any minister, has no authority to prevent someone from appearing in front of a committee.
Their ministerial function may present a limitation on what you can ask that political aide when they're in front of you, but everyone has a duty, apart from members of Parliament, senators, and the Governor General, to show up when summoned before a committee.
While the government prevented these individuals from appearing before the ethics committee, it is inherent upon us today to compel them to appear. We know for a fact that contempts of Parliament in the past are not, as any criminal activity, purged from the record just because of an election and a new parliamentary session beginning.
We now have the ethics committee's report on the WE Charity scandal before the chamber and we need to talk in detail and investigate further the outstanding questions of how this came into being.
We also know that aside from these political staffers, the member for Waterloo, the former minister of youth and social development, who was in charge of implementing this program through the WE Charity, essentially perjured herself at committee when she first said that she had never met with the Kielburger brothers, and ultimately we—
1183 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 4:29:36 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is rising on a point of order.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 4:29:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the hon. member just accused the member for Waterloo of perjuring herself. I do not think that is parliamentary language.
31 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 4:29:50 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member. I will have to go back and review the blues. I am not sure what the hon. member actually said, but I can go and review the blues.
I am not sure if the hon. member wants to respond to that as he is resuming. There are only 18 seconds left before he has questions and comments.
The hon. member.
65 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 4:30:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will address the point of order. First, I would say it was in the committee report that was tabled that there was misleading evidence given or there was a failure to acknowledge that there were previous meetings between the minister and the Kielburgers that she had denied at her first—
54 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 4:30:31 p.m.
- Watch
I want to again remind members to be very careful with the language they use in the House because we would not want to mislead the House.
The hon. member has 14 seconds to wrap up before questions and comments.
40 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 4:30:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is important that the committee is allowed to finish off its work and that anyone who obstructed those investigations in the past is allowed to appear now so we can get the truth for all Canadians on how the WE Charity scandal had played out.
48 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 4:31:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I lament again that we are on a concurrence debate, which is likely to mean that we will not get to petitions or other Routine Proceedings today, but I want to first agree with the member that I do not think we got to the bottom of the WE Charity scandal because of the refusal to allow the RCMP to investigate further.
I also do not believe that the language the hon. member used, which I heard clearly was to say that the member perjured herself, was parliamentary. I am a former practising lawyer and the word “perjure” suggests that someone has sworn an oath and lied under oath, and therefore has committed a crime. I think the hon. member should state now that he regrets using that language, because it is shocking to me as a member of Parliament to hear it in this place.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 4:32:00 p.m.
- Watch
I would remind the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that we addressed that under the point of order.
The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 4:32:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we do have a practice in the House of Commons of making sure that there is ministerial accountability. It is in our rules and procedures.
The minister was sworn in under oath, and recommendation 3 of the report said that given the failure of the minister to reveal her April 17, 2020, meeting with Mr. Craig Kielburger, a review of ministerial accountability in committees must be undertaken. We know that committees were misled. I would say that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands can use her legal background to determine what term she wants to use, but I will say that it is in the report and that report has been tabled in the House.
That is why I believe the member for Waterloo, who is no longer a minister in the Liberal cabinet, needs to appear and account for her testimony during the 43rd Parliament.
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, today we were supposed to be debating Bill C-18. That is on the agenda. Is the member concerned that the Conservative Party says it wants more debate on legislation, yet it continues to focus on character assassination and preventing debate on government legislation? On the other hand, it complains that the government is bringing in time allocation, which seems to be the only way we can pass legislation because of the irresponsible behaviour of the Conservative Party.
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 4:34:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am disappointed with the member for Winnipeg North and his constant defence of the ethical behaviour and unethical consequences that have been caused by his government.
I will say this. We know that parliamentary institutions are being questioned quite vigorously by Canadians when they see unethical behaviour and sanctions brought forward by the Ethics Commissioner against the Prime Minister, former minister Morneau and other members of the government. When it comes down to truth, honesty and integrity, we have to make sure that we are holding those up in the utmost. It is important that we have these debates and carry on with these studies at the ethics committee to restore that trust in our democratic institutions.
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 4:35:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member referenced it in his speech, but this is the third time that we have endeavoured to have the opportunity to talk about this important issue. I would ask the member if he would elaborate on why it is important that we have this debate here today.
50 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 4:35:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this comes down to the very foundation of our democracy. If we cannot restore confidence and trust in our democratic institutions, including in the government itself, then chaos will prevail. We need to make sure that we do not fall into the practices of other failed states where kleptocracies rule and corruption is part of everyday business. We are better than that, and that is why this committee report and the ongoing work that we are doing as members of Parliament at the ethics committee must be respected.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 4:36:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this place to talk about the issues that are so important to Canadians. I rise to speak to this issue not for the first time and not for the second time, but for the third time. The reason why I share that today is that it is unfortunate that over the past number of times when we have endeavoured to move this motion, the Liberals have, with the support of the NDP, moved not to allow it to proceed and be debated and ultimately voted on.
There is the old saying that suggests that where there is smoke, there is fire. I would suggest that when it comes to the issues that are outlined. I will get into some of the specifics of why it is so important that we have this discussion and that we do not simply allow the scandal that was the WE Charity report, as specifically referenced in the title of “Questions of Conflict of Interest and Lobbying in Relation to Pandemic Spending” that was tabled in the second session of the 43rd Parliament.
We have to have these conversations. I would simply ask if the government, and if the NDP as the Liberals' coalition partners, are truly in earnest when they talk about their openness and transparency. When they are outside of this place, they certainly repeat those talking points time and again. However, when it comes to having these discussions, they seem quick to dismiss, deny and shut down debate on these important subjects.
In the first session of the last Parliament, I sat on the ethics committee during what was the height of the pandemic. Let me provide a little context here as to what led to this report being done. It was at a time when Canadians demanded much of their government. The Prime Minister and certain high-level members of the government took it upon themselves not to work in the best interests of Canadians, but rather to further their own political and personal interests.
That is egregious at every level. We saw it in the debate that took place at committee, where there was filibuster and delay and every effort imaginable to stop this motion from being studied. The government went through unbelievable efforts to try to stop it, but thankfully the committee under both the first and second session was able to move forward this motion and at least start to get some answers.
When I tabled the motion to retable this report from the last Parliament in this Parliament, the effort was simply that the calling of an election could not be an excuse to wipe the slate clean. There are consequences of one's actions. The Prime Minister promised not to call an election. Very clearly he said that, time and again. He even voted in this place. I saw the Prime Minister vote that he would not call an election during the pandemic, but history shows that he acted otherwise. There has been a lot of talk about unparliamentary language in this place. I will simply leave it to Canadians to judge what his conduct was.
Let me provide context. Just prior to the prorogation of Parliament in the summer of 2020, the ethics committee was hard at work and had documents that were being brought forward. The government members on that committee went to great lengths to ensure that the privacy of certain individuals would be protected and spent significant amounts of time in defence of ensuring that there would be protection of the privacy of certain individuals, such as the Prime Minister's family. The committee agreed, and gave consent for extraordinary measures to ensure the protection of privacy of these individuals.
However, the day that these documents were to be released to the committee, the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. I would suggest that is an extraordinary measure to take to cover up answers to something that we may now never know.
Where there is smoke there certainly appears to be fire, whether it is in relation to the story that led to the eventual report, including some incredibly troubling conduct of certain former cabinet members who still have seats in this place and that my colleague from Manitoba alluded to earlier, or whether it is the need, which I believe has been clearly demonstrated, to continue having these conversations.
The government is going to be quick to say that we should be debating its priorities. Parliament is a place where the priorities of the nation are debated. Let me simply share how absolutely important getting answers on issues such as the WE Charity scandal are to Canadians. I, like all members, just returned from what was a very productive constituency week. I hosted many community events, driving thousands of kilometres across beautiful east-central Alberta, and had many folks come out and attend town hall meetings. I had opportunities to connect with the people I am so honoured to be able to represent.
On every occasion when I hosted these town halls, and I did four last week, and at many of the other events as well, I had people who came and provided comments. They asked me questions, and in some cases, just as I was walking down the street, they came up to me to say, “Keep fighting. Keep trying to get answers.” They would mention things such as the SNC-Lavalin affair. They would mention things such as the WE Charity scandal. They would mention some of the more recent revelations about sole-source contracts. They talked, time and again, about the need for trust to be restored within our institutions.
One of the extensive conversations I had was at a town hall in a small community of about 700. These were my constituents sharing with me. It was not me sharing with them. It was about how they see that there is an incredible erosion of trust between the people of this country and its government. If we do not work diligently to restore that, I shudder to think what the consequences will be. I hear often from constituents who feel like the only choice is to give up on our country.
Any government that sees that as a consequence of its actions certainly should take pause to maybe re-evaluate, to show an ounce of contrition or maybe change direction and show an ounce of humility. The issues that we face within our nation are significant, and this, the trust of our institutions, is paramount among them.
I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substitute the following: “that 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 to:
(i) make every effort possible to receive evidence from Ben Chin, Rick Theis, Amitpal Singh, the witnesses who did not comply with the House's Order of Tuesday, March 25, 2021, to appear before the committee;
(ii) 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) report back within 60 sitting days; and
(b) the committee be empowered to order the attendance of the member for Waterloo from time to time as it sees fit.
I would simply conclude by saying this. Trust has to be restored, and this is a clear opportunity—
1285 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
