44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2022 11:00AM
- 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
- May/30/22 4:46:25 p.m.
- Watch
Unfortunately, the member cannot debate the motion and cannot clarify the motion, only table the motion.
The amendment is in order.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, Correctional Service Canada; the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, Health; the hon. member for Bay of Quinte, Housing.
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 4:48:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to designate Thursday, June 2, for the debate to be held pursuant to Standing Order 51.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to rephrase the question I asked the previous speaker. The Conservative opposition is asking for debate on Bill C-18, as it asks for additional debate on everything, because it does have that Conservative hidden agenda of not passing legislation and filibustering.
Why, on the one hand, does the Conservative Party say it wants more debate time for legislation, but then on the other hand, it filibusters by bringing forward concurrence motions on things that are coming out of the committee? It seems that on the one hand Conservatives are asking for debate on legislation, and then on the other hand they do not want to have that debate when they are provided the opportunity to do just that.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 4:50:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would simply start by saying that it is very clear that the Liberals do not have a hidden agenda and that they are quick to cover up the corruption of the Prime Minister and the government. They have made that abundantly clear and abundantly public. I would simply suggest that they speak to their constituents about those actions, as I have certainly spoken to mine and they have made their position very clear.
There is an example that I think specifically answers the member's question. The last time we rose to debate this very issue, we offered to work late so that we could debate this issue, but also so that the government would be able to ensure that its priorities were debated that day. The Liberals voted no then. One and all Canadians need to take their machinations on such subjects with a grain of salt because certainly when we compare them to the facts, they simply do not hold up.
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 4:51:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise and ask a question of my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot. While debating this ethics concurrence report, does he think the decline in democracy, the lack of faith that Canadians continue to have in some of our institutions, can be brought back to the fact that there continues to be ethics violation after ethics violation from the Liberal government? Does he think that would have a role to play in people having less faith in the Liberal government, having less faith in what the Liberals are trying to do and having questions about the authenticity of some of the programs rolled out? Most of the people who are getting ahead now in Canada have a connection and must be a Liberal insider. Does he have anything to say about that?
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 4:52:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with the member. I think there has been a very concerning decline in democracy within our nation. If we do not take that seriously in this place, I fear what the consequences of that will be.
Certainly, as an Albertan and a western Canadian member of Parliament, I hear from many of my constituents who do not want to suggest it, but feel like they are left with no option but to look to a future that does not include being part of Canada. That is an absolute shame.
Many of the actions of the Liberal government have contributed to that decline in democracy that we are facing. I certainly hope that we can let this come to a vote and be debated fulsomely, but my fear is that, as they have done before, the Liberals will simply shut it down and continue the cover-up.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 4:53:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have seen in the past that when the government got into trouble, it prorogued Parliament to end one scandal and called an election to block another scandal. What does the member think the government will do this time around to prevent us from getting to the heart of this scandal?
53 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
