44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I am disappointed because my colleagues and I were looking forward to debating this piece of legislation. So far, the only Conservative member to speak to it has been me, which is unfortunate.
To my colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, it is obviously a forgone conclusion that this bill will be passed and time allocation will be guillotined on this bill.
I want a clear commitment from the minister that he, the government House leader and the whip will not interfere at committee. I want a clear commitment that they will permit the committee to hear from witnesses and that there will not be a guillotine or programming motion at committee and that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage will be permitted to fully explore the bill, hear from witnesses and not be forced into a programming motion.
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to the hon. minister, this moment we have now is not about debating the substance of Bill C-18. I look forward to an opportunity to debate that, but I will not get that opportunity because time allocation is being used again.
I have to say that, on principle, I object to this. I objected to it when the previous administration under Stephen Harper did it over and over again at a level unprecedented in parliamentary history. What is now happening is the governing Liberals are normalizing the suppression of debate at second reading. Maybe we can debate this in the Standing Orders debate we are to have. Is the goal of governing parties in this place to shut down all debate at second reading and just say, “We will get to it in committee”? That is not acceptable.
This is not acceptable and I will not be voting for time allocation. On principle, I have maybe once been persuaded that there really was a case for it, but today on Bill C-18 there is no case for it.
184 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 4:36:20 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 4:51:19 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 5:10:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the point is to emphasize that this is good legislation. The former Conservative Party leader did support the principle of it. Second reading is about debating the principle of it. Let us get it to committee. Everyone supports it, yet the Conservative Party has shown no indication of a will to see the legislation pass. We have seen that with other legislation. Instead, the Conservatives want to play political games inside the chamber.
An hon. member: It is called debate.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, they can call it what they will, but it is games. It is political theatre. It is to prevent legislation from being ultimately debated and passed.
On the one hand, the Conservatives say they want more debate time, but when the government brought in Motion No. 11 to give them just that, what did they do? They voted against it. On the government benches, like many Canadians from coast to coast to coast, we work past 6:30 in the evening, so we were saying, “Let us have more debate time in the evenings.” The Conservatives said no. They want more debate time, but they just do not want to work late.
They say they want more debate time on government legislation, but when the government brings forward legislation, what do they do? They try to adjourn debate on the legislation. Heck, they will try to adjourn the proceedings of the day. They want to go home early. Sometimes, they will move that another member of their own caucus be heard so they can cause the bells to ring and they do not actually have to debate. Go figure the silliness that comes from the Conservative Party of Canada today. Instead of having a debate on the legislation that the Conservatives are saying they want to have more debate on, they bring in concurrence motions, which prevents hours of debate. When it comes to opposition days, do they ever bring in concurrence motions? No, because they want their debate time on their agenda.
The Conservative Party is not doing what it was given to do in the last federal election. The responsibility of being the official opposition does not mean it has to be a destructive force, and that is what we are witnessing: a destructive force content on character assassination. That is the Conservatives' focus, and it really is quite unfortunate because there is so much more they can be doing, even as an official opposition.
They do not have to agree with everything we are doing. They can critique. They can be as critical as they want on a wide variety of policy issues. The New Democrats will support us through critical votes, but they are also some of our greatest critics because they understand the role that they were provided in the last federal election. I only hope that more and more of the Conservatives would come to the realization that they have more of a role to play than providing destructive character assassinations in the House of Commons today.
512 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that was one of the most fanciful speeches I have ever heard from the member. It was amazing. He lives in a parallel universe.
The Liberals brought in time allocation on Bill C-18. Their job is done. It is going to get voted on. Now he is making this big pitch about how we should be debating Bill C-18 and saying we are being obstructionist, but the vote is going to happen regardless.
The government got its wish; its job is done, so now we should get to a vote on this concurrence report and have the debate, because he has done his job. For the first time in eight months, the member actually got something done for the Liberal government. Time allocation was brought in, and he made this big fanciful speech about how we are obstructionist.
I am wondering if the member could lay bare some of the facts that happened today, such as the government bringing in time allocation and curbing debate on Bill C-18 after one Conservative member got to speak. The rest of the member's speech was about nothing. Could the member please put the facts on the table for Canadians about what has actually happened in the House of Commons today?
My constituents in Regina—Lewvan would like to hear a Liberal answer a question. For once, could he please be truthful about the fact that he did get Bill C-18 to where a vote is going to happen? Then we can move on and debate something as important as ethics in the government.
268 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to be very clear to the residents of Regina—Lewvan, the Conservatives do not want to pass Bill C-18. They would like to put up as many speakers as they can in order to filibuster the bill virtually endlessly.
The government brought in time allocation this morning, and when the minister stood up, we saw a number of Conservatives stand in their place to say they wanted to have more debate time on Bill C-18 and to ask why we were preventing them from having more debate time. Then when they were provided more debate time on the bill, which we are supposed to be debating right now, what did they do? They prevented debate knowing full well that it will be coming to a vote because time allocation was brought in.
The Conservatives really need to understand what they are doing. I do not think they understand it. If they want more debate time and the government provides more debate time by sitting later in the evening, why not be happy with it and accept it? Why not allow for orderly proceedings? House leaders could sit down and opposition members could say they understand we have to pass legislation. Then we could have some time for this debate, maybe an extra few hours in the evening, and work it out in negotiations by talking about it, while acknowledging that there is a responsibility for the government to pass legislation and a responsibility for the official opposition to contribute to the debate in a positive, constructive way.
262 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 5:18:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am never fearful of any sort of debate, whether it is on the behaviour of the Bloc party in federal elections regarding opting in and opting out or it is on a Conservative Senate scandal. Whatever it might be, I am open to those types of debates.
We have limited time as a government given our legislative agenda, but opposition parties have opportunities. The Bloc, for example, during its opposition days, could bring up any sort of debating option it would like. If it wants to debate a specific issue, it could do that. It could use its opposition day as an opportunity, just as the Conservatives could.
However, that is not the real reason this motion is being debated today. The real reason the motion is being debated is to prevent debate on government legislation. It was anticipated that today, being a Monday, we would be debating government legislation. Typically, that is what would happen, unless it is a designated opposition day.
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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 5:50:07 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
