44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, again, I look at it, and the member says how important it is to have a debate on this issue. If it was such an important issue, why would the Bloc not support a concurrence motion or an opposition day? Why use it strictly on a government's debate day for legislation, when we have already put in the issue of allocated time for Bill C-18? In other words, every minute we are debating this motion today—
81 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 5:50:03 p.m.
- Watch
We have to give five seconds to the hon. member to answer.
The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 5:50:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would turn that question back to the member. Why have we been working for weeks under a gag order and time allocation when we should actually be debating this in great detail? That is for him to answer. We will talk more about this later.
48 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to this concurrence motion. Those watching at home might be wondering what a concurrence motion is. A report has been tabled by a committee in the House. Very rarely would there be a concurrence motion like this to vote on a report. It is, in my opinion and as the member for Winnipeg North indicated earlier, nothing more than a tactic by the Conservatives to jam up more House time.
What makes this particular concurrence motion even more remarkable is this. We start off with the rarity by which reports are dealt with in a concurrence motion, but this one is not even a report from the current ethics committee. This is actually a report from the previous committee. I am sorry, I should not say that. All of the work was done by the previous committee. It developed the report, put together the report, studied it, questioned the witnesses and put it forward. All the current ethics committee that exists in this Parliament did was retable that report.
We start from a place where it is very rare to have a motion like this on a report. To make it even more bizarre, it is not even a report that the current ethics committee dealt with. It did not interview the witnesses. It did not ask questions or form the recommendations. It is going off of work that was done before. People might ask themselves why it is doing this or they might become skeptical when we accuse the Conservatives of using this as just another political opportunity. It is very clear, when we look at the games they are playing, that they are willing to go to any lengths to make sure that we cannot get government legislation through.
For those watching, what we otherwise would have been discussing right now is Bill C-18. Bill C-18 is a bill that the Conservatives, at least in their election platform, support. It is a bill that would provide supports to news outlets throughout our country to make sure they can continue to be independent. Rather than doing their job and following through on commitments they made during the election campaign to Canadians, they see no political win or political gain out of this particular bill because the vast majority of members in the House, if not all, already support it. They are looking for blood, quite frankly, and they do not see any here. That is why they say, “Rather than spend time talking about Bill C-18, a concept that we agree with, why not go after something that we can actually attack Liberals and individual Liberal members on?” That is exactly what we are seeing here with the introduction of this concurrence motion on this report that has been tabled by the committee.
One of the comments that I found very interesting, and I was surprised to hear from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, of all people, was when she questioned the member for Winnipeg North as to why he was using time to debate this. That criticism or question might hold water if nobody else in the room was speaking to it, but Conservatives are. They are using the time, burning the day, by debating and talking about this particular motion. The question then becomes: Why would we not use our designated slots to speak to this and to tell Canadians what is going on?
I find it quite interesting that we would be accused of wanting to speak to this just because we do not want to talk to it. That is like saying that we should not be speaking to it because we do not want to be talking about this anyway. Of course we do not want to be talking about this. We want to be talking about Bill C-18, but the reality of the situation is that through their political games the Conservatives have put us in the position of having to debate this right now. We are clearly going to use that opportunity to debate it and show Canadians what is going on right now. I would expect, to be completely honest, that question to come, in a very cynical way, from my colleagues across the way, but I was surprised to hear it from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Maybe she has had an opportunity to reflect on it and thinks differently of it now.
I would like to talk about this report specifically. I realize there are 23 recommendations in this report that were put forward by the previous Parliament's ethics committee. It put forward these recommendations. When one starts to read the recommendations, it becomes very clear how incredibly focused they are on individuals: the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's wife and people who work in the Prime Minister's Office.
We heard a Conservative member talk earlier about wanting to get certain staff to come before the committee. One of the deep criticisms was that the government would not allow staff to go before the committee to testify. Instead, the President of the Treasury Board, if I remember correctly, offered to go to the committee to speak, but the Conservatives, the opposition, were not interested in that. They wanted actual staffers to go there.
I find that very concerning. I realize that Conservatives have no issue with attacking individual people. For the slightest bit of political gain, they will take down somebody's career. We already know that. They did, after all, for the first time in over 100 years, drag someone before the House, to the bar of the House. It had not happened in 100 years, and it had never happened to somebody who was outside of the government. The Conservatives dragged before the bar the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada. That demonstrates how willing they are to take down anybody if they think they will get the slightest political gain out of it, and that is exactly what we are seeing happen here today.
When the minister who is responsible for these staffers says they are the leader, they will take responsibility, they will go before committee and they will answer the questions, that shows what a leader does. Was that enough blood for the Conservatives? No, of course it was not. They wanted to go after the staffers, the individuals who are employed by the minister responsible, which, coming from the ethics committee of all places, is extremely unethical.
In any organization, there is always somebody who is going to take responsibility for those decisions, somebody who will be the accountable one. The minister wanted to do that. Were the Conservatives and other opposition parties interested in that in at committee? No, they were not. They wanted staff. They wanted individuals who do not have the same power to defend themselves, who do not have a voice in this place and who do not have a voice in the public to be the ones to go in and be berated for two hours.
The minister was not interested in doing that, which should not come as a surprise to anybody in this House. It certainly should not come as a surprise to Canadians, especially when Canadians witnessed the Conservative Party, propped up by the Bloc and the NDP, drag before the House of Commons a public service individual, the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada. Never in the history of this Parliament had that happened, and when it was done before that, it was never an individual in his position.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, they are heckling me now. I can always tell when I hit a nerve. I can always tell when the truth is starting to sink in. When someone is calling them out, we can tell, because that is when they start to heckle, and that is exactly what they are doing right now.
When it comes back to this particular report and the committee work that was done, Liberals did participate in this committee at the time. They participated in the committee. They helped studies with the witnesses. They helped to create their own recommendations. I know that three recommendations that came from the Liberal benches, which I do not see in the same form in the report, were never adopted. I would like to read out what those recommendations were.
The recommendations from the Liberal members do not mention individuals' names or look to berate people. They look to set and develop policy. The recommendations, which were in the dissenting report, were that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics conduct, at an earliest opportunity, a full statutory review of the Conflict of Interest Act with appropriate recommendations.
It seems like a legitimate thing to do. It seems like a legitimate thing to do from a policy perspective if we are is generally interested in trying to fix perceived flaws in our system. That is what we would do, not talk about all these recommendations that they have in here referencing the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's wife and various other people, as well as how certain information needs to be turned over immediately. The reason I say that is that colleagues will recall that the Ethics Commissioner was already doing his own study on this issue.
Everything that the committee was demanding in the form of recommendations through this study was for no purpose other than to grandstand and put all the dirty laundry of everybody out in public, regardless of what their involvement was. They are attempts to do that. That is all this was. We know that is because the Ethics Commissioner is not going to do this to the same degree as the official opposition wanted the committee to do it. That is all they are interested in.
The Ethics Commissioner was already investigating this, and it was as if the committee said, “No, no; we're better at this. We should do all this work instead of the individual who has been hired to do this in a fair, non-partisan, unbiased way.” That is exactly why this report has been tabled again.
As I mentioned previously, this is not a report generated by this particular Parliament at the ethics committee that sits now, but one from the previous Parliament. They basically just grabbed the report and retabled it so that the Conservatives could continually do this over and over and over.
The second recommendation that the Liberals put forward in that dissenting report was that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics conduct at the earliest opportunity a full statutory review of the Lobbying Act, with appropriate recommendations.
Again looking at it from a policy perspective, the Liberals were saying that they recognize there is concern out there, that it is possible there are flaws out there, and that this is how they would address it. They would look at the Conflict of Interest Act and look at the Lobbying Act and at ways to make them better and strengthen them. That is what proper policy from a committee should look like, not these arbitrary demands that are being made by the opposition for no purpose other than to try to shame individuals and try to keep a scandal going as long as they possibly can. That is all they were interested in.
The third and final recommendation made by the Liberal members in the dissenting report was that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics refrain from conducting parallel investigations with any independent office into the conduct of members of Parliament, either directly or by proxy.
That last recommendation was the Liberal members saying, “Hold on a second, as this ethics investigation is already ongoing by the individual who has been appointed to look into this stuff. Maybe it is not a good idea that we do this at the same time.” It would be the equivalent of a judge reviewing a case in court while a parliamentary committee is trying to do the exact same thing on the side. They are trying to influence it. They are trying to highlight and bring everything possible to the surface so that they can try to attack individuals and personalities. They do this time after time.
This brings me back to where I started in the five minutes I have remaining. What we are seeing here today is part of a pattern. It is part of a pattern that has been developed lately by the Conservative Party of Canada, a pattern of continually trying to put up any possible roadblocks. They are moving concurrence on a report that a committee in this Parliament did not even write. They are not even doing the work before trying to move the motion here. They are just grabbing a report from the last Parliament and retabling it here so that they can move concurrence on it. We are seeing this time and time again.
As indicated by the member for Winnipeg North on a number of occasions, the Conservatives have complained, saying they want debate, that they want to debate the issue. They say, “Why won't you let us debate these very important pieces of legislation?”
Then the government says, “Good point. Maybe we do need some more time to debate.” Motion No. 11 comes along, basically saying, “Let us sit later into the evening.” What did the Conservatives do? They tried to filibuster that. We had to move closure on that motion, the motion to try to set our work schedule. That is how incredibly obstructionist they have been.
Earlier today we saw a Conservative member stand up and move an amendment to the concurrence motion. He was just trying to create another vote. He was trying to burn more time. That is what is happening over and over in here. This is not about actually debating policy.
If Conservatives wanted to debate policy today and had a genuine interest in advancing the objectives of Canadians, they would be debating Bill C-18, something we know they care about because it was in their platform, and something they had said they are pushing forward on.
However, it appears as though the Conservatives are only interested in moving it forward if they form government. As we saw, they put it in their election platform and they ran on it. We get here and say, “Let us bring this idea forward.” It should be a fairly easy one to get through, because we know the Conservatives support it, but every single time we bring it up in this House, they put up a roadblock like this to prevent us from actually talking about it.
The Conservatives are only interested in delivering for Canadians if they can be in the driver's seat. That is not how democracy works. Democracy works, in Canada at least, with people being elected from 338 parts of the country, coming together and figuring out the best way forward. If we cannot do it through consensus, which by default we rarely ever could, then we vote on it. Then we move on. We recognize that we played our role in that democratic process, that we helped advance the lives of Canadians for the better. We accept the roles that we have been given in the House.
Canadians will notice that the Liberal Party said that we accept the role we have been given in this House. We accept the role of being a minority government. What did we do? We looked to other parties. We went to the NDP to see if it wanted to work with us to advance issues for Canadians. The NDP accepted its role. It said yes. It had an interest in advancing issues for Canadians and wanted to get together and work together. That is how we got a supply and confidence agreement.
We know what the Bloc's objective is. It is interested in being its own country. I guess, by default, it is going to be a lot harder to work with them for the interest of all Canadians, but at least we know exactly what its position is. We know exactly where it is coming from. The Conservatives, however, are literally rudderless right now. Who is driving the ship over there? I would absolutely love to know. There is no way that they can continue to operate in this way. They do not even know what their role in this House is.
I have no problem voting against this concurrence motion and I have given my reasons. I have referenced the report, but this is not what we should have been talking about today. We should have been talking about Bill C-18, an issue that would genuinely advance the interests of Canadians and make our country more independently focused for news organizations and outlets throughout the world. Unfortunately, we are not there, because the Conservatives are once again playing games.
2877 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the remarks from my colleague. One of the things that comes to mind when he talks about the Conservative Party's motivating factor is that this issue was part of an election platform for us back in September, but we were not unique. All political parties recognized how important it was that we take on these tech giants in order to ensure that we have an industry that is so critical to Canada's democracy, along with issues such as jobs.
It is an industry that we need to protect. It seemed back in September that all political parties recognized that fact. Now we have a government that is fulfilling one of many other election commitments. This particular debate that we were supposed to be having today on Bill C-18 was to deal with being there in a very real and tangible way to protect our news agencies, to ensure that we are levelling the field and ultimately ensuring fairer compensation so that we would have more fact-based news and protect our democracy and so many other things.
Could the member speculate as to why he believes the Conservatives are now putting up such a roadblock, when back in September they seemed to support the principle behind it?
214 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that I hope those who tune in to the goings-on of the House recognize that normally when a government member gives a speech, it is very rare that they receive a question from another government member. However, importantly, the very first question is coming from a government member. Where are the Conservatives to ask me questions right now?
This goes back to the point that, if the Conservatives are so interested in this motion they have put forward, why are they not participating in the debate? Conservatives should have had the first question, and they never asked me a question, yet they put forward this motion today because they are so passionate about the issue. I think it proves my point that they are not interested in anything other than just being obstructionist and burning three hours off the clock, which is what we have seen today.
To the member's question, Bill C-18 is a bill that would help many smaller news organizations, in particular. I think of the Kingstonist in my riding, which is a news organization that started from a grassroots level and has slowly worked its way up. It does not have the ability or the reach to compete with some of these other organizations, but it is very good at reporting on the facts. Very rarely will we know the opinion of a reporter at the Kingstonist. It is reporting on the facts, and we need that now more than ever. We need information that is based purely on fact to be provided to the public so the public can make their own decisions as to how they feel about an issue and not be influenced by a pundit's opinion or objective on one thing or another.
Bill C-18 is incredibly important because it would provide the resources to make sure that smaller news organizations, such as the Kingstonist in my riding, will have the opportunity to continue to do the very important work that they do.
343 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to rise on this point because I think this debate on an ethics concurrence motion is, of course, an effort at time-wasting, but some of the issues are substantive.
I never really had an opportunity to comment on what I made of the WE Charity scandal. Having attended meetings at finance committee, and having watched the Prime Minister's testimony and the testimony of his chief of staff, I came to the conclusion, for what it is worth, that the Prime Minister's Office did not politically interfere in this at all. It was Rachel Wernick, as a chief public civil servant, discovering that the Prime Minister's favourite pet project to deliver the program for youth was not yet up and running, and civil servants who I think were embarrassed to tell the Prime Minister that the youth service corps was not up and running, who scrambled to find something to cover for an announcement that had already been made. It was the civil servants who came up with the WE Charity as a possible way to deliver the program. That was my conclusion from watching the evidence.
However, I still think we should have been able to get to the bottom of it so all Canadians would have some assurance that we knew what this was. Also, the fact that it got called the “We Charity scandal” points to some other issues that I think are important, and one of them is that we really do need to amend, reform and modernized Canada's charity laws.
This is a roundabout way of saying that I had some thoughts on the matter, but I have never had a chance to get them on the record, and for that I thank the Conservatives for raising this concurrence debate. However, my thanks are rather overwhelmed by my frustrations that we are not debating Bill C-18.
322 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 6:15:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opinion of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands as to what the results were. The Ethics Commissioner, in his investigation, came to the conclusions that he did, and that was it.
The member talked specifically about the WE Charity and its involvement in this, but let us not forget that, at the end of the day, WE Charity supported and helped a lot of children throughout this country. However, for no reason other than political gain, Conservatives were willing to walk all over that because they thought they could get an ounce of political gain out of it, and that is what they did.
WE Charity is not a Liberal organization or an NDP organization. As a matter of fact, the provincial government of Manitoba, in multiple budgets, awarded money to WE Charity to do work in Manitoba. WE Charity was an organization that many Conservative MPs had visited, frequented, participated in and encouraged.
WE Charity only became a lightening rod when the Conservatives decided it was time to use it as one for political gain. Up until that point, the Conservatives were all about WE Charity. Both Conservative MPs and Conservative governments throughout Canada routinely built funds into their budgets to give to WE Charity to do work for them.
217 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 6:17:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the presenter from the other side for his unique viewpoint on how the facts may or may not have occurred. It is quite surprising how the government has continuously tried to cover up the WE scandal.
If the Liberals are so open, honest and transparent, then why was cabinet confidentiality not lifted in this case in order to have the real facts and everything on the table? Unfortunately, that was not the case. Could the member explain to me why cabinet confidentiality was not released?
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 6:17:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the Conservatives for finally participating in the debate. I had to wait for three questions before they decided to be interested and ask me one. We listen to the rhetoric from the member talking about the WE Charity, ethics and a violation, and this and that, but I will remind him that the Ethics Commissioner determined that the Prime Minister had done nothing wrong. The Conservative member looks surprised when I say that right now. Just because his caucus members might be telling him that something was wrong, the Ethics Commissioner did not determine that.
I would encourage him to go back to read the report from the Ethics Commissioner because the Conservatives utilized a national charity that supported thousands of children, and with all due respect to my friends in the Bloc and the NDP, they were right along with them during the process. They utilized the charity, at the expense of those who would benefit from it, for political gain. The member is continuing to do it right now, even after the Ethics Commissioner came to his conclusion on it.
186 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 6:19:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I love how over-the-top this is coming from the member for Kingston and the Islands, but he said there was nothing wrong. The previous finance minister was found guilty of breaking ethics in the WE Charity scandal. Just because the Prime Minister did not break the law this time, it is not like Liberals did not. Their finance minister did. How can he be so over-the-top, looking down his nose from his high horse and saying that nothing is wrong with this report when the finance minister of the country broke the ethics rules?
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 6:19:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is because the previous question was about the Prime Minister. If the member wants to talk about the previous finance minister, then yes, the Ethics Commissioner came to a conclusion and the information was out there, so why do we still need this report?
47 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 6:19:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join this debate on ethics and the role that ethics should play for the people who govern our country.
This report is about whether we should re-evaluate what happened during the WE Charity scandal but, throughout my speech, I am going to cover many ethical lapses that have happened with the government. I will also talk about some of the things that people in Regina—Lewvan and across Saskatchewan and Canada would actually like to see this chamber debate.
I have listened to a few speeches now from the members of the opposition, the members for Winnipeg North and Kingston and the Islands, and they are talking about how the government has been nothing but a blessing for Canadians across the country. They are talking about how they cut taxes for the middle class in 2015, without really having the realization of what is happening in 2022 and putting the lens on.
We are getting past COVID-19. They still want to bring it up, and they still want to make everyone across the country afraid, but if we go to every country across the world, people are moving on. It is now time for the government to move on past COVID-19 and start looking at what it can do to help control inflation and the rising cost of living, get people back to work full-time, get all Canadians the ability to travel, get rid of restrictions, and stop stigmatizing and dividing Canadians at every turn.
The Liberal government has not met a wedge issue it has not tried to take advantage of with Canadians. Liberals have not missed an opportunity to try to pit Canadian against Canadian. Whether it be western Canadians against eastern Canadians, or people who made a personal health choice to take a vaccine or not, they will continue to try to pit Canadians against Canadians. That is something that us on this side, as Conservatives, have always fought against.
We have always had a consistent message: vaccines are available for those who want to take them. We needed to get to a high vaccine rate, which Canadians did. Canadians did go and get vaccinated, but we should not penalize people who have made a different choice. They should be able to go to work and raise their families. They should be able to travel, not only within Canada but also outside of Canada as well. We have people in the country who are not able to travel within their own country. They cannot get on a plane. They cannot get on a train. That is something we should be discussing in this chamber and questioning the Liberal government as to why it continues to try to stigmatize Canadians. Those are the debates we should be having.
We should be having debates on policy and on ethics as well. That is important.
Time and again, the government has used time allocation to stifle debate. In the magical fantasy land the member for Winnipeg North has brought forward in his speech, Conservatives try to stifle debate. We try to have debate as often as we can because we believe that it actually brings forward better legislation. It has happened, a couple of times.
It has happened, a couple of times, where we have added to the legislation. I remember the early times of the pandemic in 2019. We had debates, and we made programs better. That is hardly stifling. They did try to sneak past a piece of legislation that gave them the right to tax and spend for two years completely unfettered, which, once again, shows that every time there is an opportunity or a crisis, the Liberals will continue to try to seize more and more power so that they have the ability to do whatever they want, whenever they want. That actually should be their next campaign slogan in 2025: “Liberals: we can do whatever we want, whenever we want. Just trust us. Heart over hand.”
I digress. One of the things that I hear in Regina—Lewvan constantly is the fact that we need to fight the rising cost of living. We have brought forward opposition motions. We have brought forward ideas on how the Liberal government could help people out.
Over 50% of Canadians are finding it hard to put food on the table. That is not the sign of a good, prosperous, well-run government, when 50% of Canadians are unable to put food on the table. Plus, we have seen it and people have seen it, all across their provinces, that the rate of visitations to food banks continues to increase. That is a sign of troubling times ahead.
We brought forward an idea in an opposition motion a few weeks ago. Why not finally scrap the carbon tax? It continues to punish Canadians who have to drive to go to work. It punishes Canadians who have to heat their homes. It punishes Canadians who have to continue to try to buy food that gets trucked in to the grocery stores. Northern and remote Canadians get punished more because, when their food gets trucked in, the prices of everyday necessities continue to rise. Those are the debates we should be having.
The Liberals talk about the tax cuts they had for the middle class in 2015. They are not helping anyone anymore. The price of gas and every essential good has gone up so high that those tax cuts have gone back into government coffers. The government and the Liberals need to listen to what Canadians are saying, not just their Liberal insiders and Bay Street buddies. They need to hear how much harder it is for Canadians to get by, and it is going to get harder. Members may or may not believe this, but they want the carbon tax to go up to $150 a tonne. Imagine being a single parent who is trying to decide whether they can put gas in their vehicle to take their kids to sports, music or drama, or whether they can buy the essential goods of food and medication if they need it. That is ridiculous. When does it end?
We continue to bring forward positive suggestions and the Liberal government continues to slap them down and bring more rhetoric forward. Time and time again we talk about people coming with questions about whether the government is doing the right thing. The Liberals continue to show that the only people they are willing to listen to are those who already agree with them.
The reason they like time allocation is they do not like debate. They do not like to hear opposing views. They show it in their actions. They showed it in their actions in February when people came to the chamber and wanted to talk to representatives about how they were feeling during COVID‑19. I cannot even imagine the type of frustration some people must have felt when they came to Ottawa to try to talk to a member of the Liberal cabinet in person and they would not be heard. They were good people who came here and wanted to be listened to because it is their right. It is the people's Parliament, and not one Liberal took the opportunity to have a conversation with them. I have gone through a few conflict negotiation classes, and not one of them ever said that conflict negotiations do not include dialogue. We need dialogue to resolve a conflict.
I think the Liberals like some of the conflict that is going on right now in our country. I think they enjoy seeing the divide between Canadians, in some way. That is why this building is one of the only places that still has a mask mandate in place. We have asked constantly to see the science and have asked why we still need to wear masks just on Parliament Hill. If we go to receptions all around downtown Ottawa, we see members opposite and members from all parties not wearing masks at them.
Let us ask this question. Why is that still in place? Maybe my hon. colleagues will talk about the BOIE, but the Liberals now have a majority on the BOIE with the NDP and can vote in whatever they want, so really it is up to them to decide when restrictions will be dropped here on Parliament Hill.
Moving on, restrictions should be dropped elsewhere. I do not know if members have been to the Toronto airport lately, but it is an unmitigated disaster right now. These are very tough times with the restrictions and some of the vaccine mandates. People would be at work today at the Pearson airport if there were no vaccine mandates, and they could be helping get rid of some of the backlogs and making air travel more smooth.
Those are some of the things we should be talking about, but the Liberals continue to bring in time allocation.
This is an opportunity to bring forward something else that is also important to people across the country: When are we going to have some confidence in our democratic institutions again? That goes straight to the heart of ethics and the ethics report. People see a decline in democracy in our country and they are losing faith. I hear it in the conversations I have in Saskatchewan with people from Regina—Lewvan. A lot of people who come to my office ask why we cannot get rid of these guys and ask what is going on in our country. Some people feel our country is a laughing stock right now because of some of the policies the government has put in place.
People are travelling to the States or over to Europe and they see how life there is returning to normal. When they come back home, they find that travellers from other countries who come here do not understand this because a lot of people have moved on. It is a difficult thing, because now these decisions and policies, which are really out of touch with most Canadians, are being propped by the junior party, the NDP. It is propping up the Liberals now. Technically they never won a mandate for a majority, but they stole a majority government from the mandate they got in 2021.
That is something people have a really hard time computing. They are asking how the Liberals have a majority when they never were awarded one by the voters in Canada. When they talk about the co-operation, they understand that sometimes parties have to co-operate, but how could they give a blank cheque to the Liberal government to govern until 2025 and not show what was agreed to on the blank cheque? We have asked many times for them to show the documentation of what was in the hidden deal that was signed in the back rooms of Ottawa that allows the Prime Minister and the government to stay in power until 2025. What were the priorities of the NDP?
A lot of us who live in western Canada have seen some NDP governments, and they have had a lot of different priorities from those the federal NDP does right now. I am pretty sure Tommy Douglas would not even be part of the NDP right now in Ottawa because he would have a lot of different views, especially around fiscal policy. Some of my friends have seen some NDP governments, such as in Winnipeg, for example, that have had a lot more fiscal responsibility than the current NDP members in Ottawa have.
That comes to the crux of the argument. When we are looking at supporting the government, from my standpoint, if I was a New Democrat, I would also look at how I could support a government that has this many ethical violations. My friend from Kingston and the Islands actually had to answer the question when I said the WE Charity maybe did not say the Prime Minister was guilty, but it did say the former finance minister, Bill Morneau, was guilty of breaking ethics rules. There was also the “Trudeau Report” and the “Trudeau II Report”, which show the Prime Minister has broken ethics rules on several different occasions.
When we are talking about an ethical government, people at some point in time in the next little while are going to wonder if they can continue to vote for a government that has so many ethical lapses. I think that does go to the heart of the debate in this chamber, and it goes to the heart of the debate on what is going to happen if the government continues to have ethical lapses.
For example, we just saw another one. The Minister of National Defence gave a sole-source contract to a friend for $16,000. That has come out in the last couple of hours. The Minister of International Trade gave a sole-source contract to her friend for $17,000. Also, who can forget Frank Baylis's sole-source contract? There was couple million dollars for that one for ventilators, and he does not even have a company that makes ventilators. It goes on and on with these ethical lapses, so the question that comes to Canadians is, how much is enough and when is it enough?
Also, it does not have to just be contracts. We have seen this time and again in other areas of the government. Continuously we see it among insiders and Liberals who are well connected to the Prime Minister and to the front bench. We have seen it from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, from New Brunswick, who has had a few questions come up about some of his appointments. I think members might remember they had to go through a Liberal donation registry before they had the opportunity to do some other things. These are some of the questions that Canadians continue to ask us, which we want to bring forward on the floor to debate, because I think there is a higher expectation of government than what the government has had.
I was an MLA in 2015, and I remember watching the Prime Minister debate Stephen Harper and talk about how sunshine is the best disinfectant. Do members remember that?
An hon. member: Hear, hear.
Mr. Warren Steinley: Madam Speaker, I heard a “hear, hear” from the member for Winnipeg North. I wish the Liberals still believed that. I also wish the Prime Minister still wanted to lead the most transparent and open government in Canadian history.
An hon. member: He does.
Mr. Warren Steinley: Madam Speaker, I heard “he does”, but he does not, because he is only the second Prime Minister to break the ethics rules not once but twice.
It is unbelievable for the government to say it is going to be the most open and accountable government in Canadian history and then continue to bring forward legislation that curtails freedom of speech, curtails freedom of expression and curtails what Canadians can put on the Internet on their own personal pages. How does that make it the most open and accountable government in Canadian history? People are looking for more. Something the government is really falling short on is making sure that people have hope for the future.
There are reports that the optimism of Canadian business owners is at an all-time low. If we talk to anyone in agriculture right now, we hear that people do not know how they are going to afford the inputs. This is a direct result of some of the policies put forward by the government. Let us look at what the cost of fertilizer is going to be for this year, with a 30% reduction, a completely arbitrary number, in emissions in the fertilizer industry. Basically, the only way the industry is going to get there is by lowering its outputs. Less fertilizer means that agriculture producers are going to have less fertilizer to put on their crops because they cannot afford to put more on. In turn, that means there is going to be less food available to Canadians and people around the world. That is the result of some of these arbitrary emission targets that the government has put into place.
I do not think some members of the Liberal government have thought about what the consequences are. I know a few have because, in doing the right thing, a few have voted in favour of a private member's bill that would lower the cost of the carbon tax on agriculture producers. One was the member for Kings—Hants and another member abstained. They have talked to agriculture producers and realized the impacts that these policies are going to have on the people who produce the food we consume.
Some of these ideological crusades that the government has been on for the last seven years do have real-life impacts on Canadians across the country. I am not talking about just western Canada, although western Canadians are the ones who produce the food that feed the rest of our country. It is not all of it but a lot of it. These impacts are compounding each other. Some of these policies were put in place not by malice, but maybe simply because sometimes the people who are putting them in place do not understand what is happening in agriculture in western Canada and the differences we see in our country.
There are a few other issues we can talk about. I have some time left, and there is a lot more I want to say.
I want to talk about the residents of Regina—Lewvan and the effects that some of these policies have had there, and some of the causes and effects of ethics. When the government makes decisions and gives some sole-source contracts, it is giving money to Liberal friends. However, it is also leaving out some of the people who are creating jobs and creating wealth in their communities.
Small business owners have had a tough time over the last couple of years. I talked to one of them, who owns a restaurant called Rock on Albert Street in Regina. He said that with how much money he has paid in carbon tax for heating and cooling the building, he could afford to hire another two staff members if he did not have to pay the carbon tax. Two people in Regina could have a job in one restaurant if there was not a carbon tax. That is something the Liberals really have to think about.
Another thing that this carbon tax is affecting in our country more than the Liberals probably realize is the budgets of school divisions in Saskatchewan. The school divisions have to heat their schools in the winter and keep them cool in the summer. Our temperature fluctuates a fair bit in Saskatchewan. It snowed on the May long weekend.
What the school divisions are seeing in their budgets, which are getting squeezed tighter and tighter, is that the carbon tax is taking tens of thousands of dollars out of them. That could be used for an EA, for another teacher or for the expense of fuel for busing. Some people do not understand how much people have to ride the bus in rural and remote communities. Fuel is also needed for heating and cooling schools. That is the equivalent to probably one or two EAs in a school division per year.
The Liberals talk about putting Canadians first and talk about having Canadians' backs. We need to bring forward good public policy to try to help out and make sure that the lives of Canadians get easier and more cost effective. We need to control inflation and the price of living. That is what we are hearing from Canadians. I hope that when we have another conversation, we will be able to talk about the Liberals being more co-operative in the House.
3372 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 6:40:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened very closely to my colleague from Regina—Lewvan talk about how he wanted more time for debate, but he did not really debate. He stood for 10 minutes and told us why he does not like the Liberals. We hear from him often that he does not like the Liberals and his neighbours do not like the Liberals and nobody likes the Liberals, but the fact is there was a democratic election a few months ago and we are on this side and they are on that side and we have a job to do. We have a job to pose good ideas, to bring good ideas forward. He talked about important issues of affordability that are affecting our neighbours and the rising cost of living, but he did not propose any solutions or give us any ideas. He just said that it is a problem.
He was standing in the House for 10 minutes saying the government does not have any solutions, which we do, because poverty is at an all-time low and joblessness is at an all-time low, and there are a lot of other things that we could talk about. We are going in the right direction. He did mention how the price on pollution is affecting some Saskatchewan schools. I had the opportunity to google it and I am proud to reiterate that there were 160 upgrades to schools, and the price on pollution provided Saskatchewan with upwards of $60 million for that. My dad used to live in Regina. Saskatchewan is a small province, so $60 million goes a really long way.
He also talked about how COVID is over and we should stop wearing masks. I am not trying to scare anybody as he suggested, but I want to remind him that in the month of May 1,700 people died in Canada from COVID, and if that says “COVID is gone” to the member, then I do not know what to say, because Canadians are still dying and a responsible government has an obligation to stand up and protect them.
356 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 6:42:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I really appreciate it when the member stands and shows his incompetence once again. I actually talked for 20 minutes, not 10, so he did not listen to my whole speech. I did provide some solutions. One was to axe the carbon tax so that people could afford gas, so that people could drive to work. On schools, I love the Liberal argument so much because it shows the Liberals' complete and utter incompetence when it comes to fiscal policy. If we are just going to give the money back to the schools through a carbon tax rebate, which does not give it all back, we should not take the money from them in the first place. We should let them use it right off the hop.
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 6:43:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am a first-time parliamentarian and I sit on the ethics committee. What we are looking at when we look at reports is precedence. From what I know, we have not studied this report, since the last Parliament was dissolved when the election was called. I only know what I have learned from the news, so it can go different ways depending on what people are reading, but we know that Parliament did not get a chance to see that.
Was the report presented to Parliament? Did Parliament get to look at those recommendations? When we talk about precedence, did we get to see how these kinds of reports can be reported to Parliament in the future and how Parliament deals with it? Are we dealing with ethics? Right now in the news we have another Liberal member being investigated. We want to look at all of these things fairly. Has the report been looked at? Is there precedence that we need to look at these reports and get them finished and put to bed?
178 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 6:44:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the ways the Liberals usually deal with reports when there are troubling times is proroguing Parliament or calling an election. Usually we do not get to deal with them because when it gets really difficult, what they do is cut bait and run because they do not want to see what the final results are.
I would like to see more opportunity to have this go back to committee, investigate it fully and make sure that when we see the final report, we have a good process going forward so that when the next Liberal ethical violation happens, we already have a template to make sure that we are able to deal with it properly, efficiently and in a fair, non-partisan manner.
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 6:44:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member said “cut bait and run”. We literally went back to the electorate and said that it was time for them to weigh in, and they had the opportunity to get rid of us if they did not want us. That is what happened.
What I find really interesting about the member's speech, and I have a lot of respect for the member so it is nothing personal, is that about two-thirds into his speech he started to talk about how if the Conservatives keep reminding the public and telling the public about this and that, then eventually the public would not have trust in the government anymore and it would not elect it. That is the entire strategy of the Conservative Party. It is not about, “Hey, public, this is my idea. What do you think? Do you think you want to support us because this is a great idea for Canadians?” No. The whole premise behind everything the Conservatives do is trying to attack individuals so they can prove to Canadians why they should not vote for this side of the House, instead of proving to them why they should vote for that side of the House.
Does the member not agree that perhaps the Conservatives should spend less time focusing on trying to dig up and manufacture outrage to upset Canadians about the government, and more time actually proposing to Canadians what they would do if they were in government? Is that not what this democratic process is all about?
262 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 6:46:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do enjoy the banter back and forth. If there was ever a master class to give on how to outrage Canadians, it is the Liberals'. I do not remember, but in the 10 years of Stephen Harper, how many mass blockades were there on Parliament Hill protesting government policies? Zero.
The member yells that the Liberals did not encourage them, but they did by their terrible policy. They did by stigmatizing and dividing Canadians. They did by creating two classes of Canadians. If people want to take a master class on outraging Canadians and making Canadians so upset that they would knock on the doors of Parliament to have their voices heard, they should talk to the Liberals.
Any time the Liberals want to have a policy debate on economics, any time they want to have a policy debate on world affairs, foreign affairs or the military, I would be happy to meet them anywhere for a debate on whose policies are better for Canadians, whose policies are better to lower inflation, whose policies are better to lower the cost of living and to make life more affordable in Canada, because the Conservatives would win a policy debate with the Liberals any day of the week.
209 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 6:47:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the member that he gave an excellent speech. It was very well informed.
The member from across the way stated that, as opposition, my colleague is just bringing up all the horrible or terrible things the Liberal government has done. I find it quite surprising. Is it not the role of the opposition to actually find out what is going wrong, how we can do it better, or in what ways we could improve upon things that are happening?
Could the member from my side discuss how we, in our role as the opposition, are trying to make sure we get all the accountability out in order to inform the Canadian public as to what has happened?
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
