SoVote

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

May/5/22 10:21:28 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this place and talk about the issues that are so important to Canadians. Before the Liberals and their partners in the NDP jump up and suggest that somehow accountability, ethics and a government that has this thing called character are not important, I would simply remind all members of this House that it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that we uphold the highest level of integrity that is possible in this place. I rise to speak to this particular motion, and not for the first time. It is troubling to me that there have been continued efforts by the government to shut it down. With the amount of effort that the government puts into shutting down debate on the ethics investigations of the alleged criminality of the Prime Minister and many of the other challenges that the government has faced when it comes to accountability, ethics and the lack of integrity that it has shown over the last six and a half or so years, it screams from the rooftops. I hear from my constituents each and every day, and I am not exaggerating, how there is this culture of corruption that has grown, which has truly shaken the trust that Canadians need to have in their institutions. My comment to all hon. members of this place is that the opposition House leader made a very clear and reasonable offer, so this will truly be a test. Was Motion No. 11 simply a power grab by the Liberals, or are they willing to take the official opposition up on our offer to have a fulsome debate on this important issue, the concurrence motion on “Questions of Conflict of Interest and Lobbying in Relation to Pandemic Spending”, an investigation that has been shut down multiple times in previous Parliaments and, unfortunately, in debating a similar motion in the last number of months? Our offer is very clear, that the opposition House leader would be that other House leader who would endorse a late sitting tonight. Because I know the Prime Minister said he does not think much about monetary policy, I will do a bit of simple math. It would take about three hours for this concurrence motion to be done, and there would be about six hours of debate that could be done on the issues that the government finds very important. The government is quick to point out that Conservatives are conducting a character assassination, but there would have to be character for it to be assassinated. It is ironic that whenever we talk about government accountability, I have heard more times than could be counted, between the heckles and the speeches, the government blaming Harper. The Liberals are quick to do so. Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper has a lot of free rent in the heads of Liberal members. They will talk about things that happened prior to seven years ago. In fact, in the early days of the pandemic, when they were looking for somebody to blame and could not find a reason to blame Harper, they even blamed Mulroney, and I find that very interesting. It is interesting how time and again the Liberals are quick to say they do not want to look at ancient history when it comes to the Prime Minister's conduct. They do not want to look back at things that happened, such as in 2016, with the alleged criminality and the decision tree that we saw where the missing piece was provided by the Prime Minister to what could very well result in a fraud charge. Canadians deserve to know if their Prime Minister is a crook, and it is certainly a question that I hear on a—

635 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 65 - May/5/22

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/5/22 10:27:37 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I did retract it, and I certainly apologize if I offended the sensitivities of any members in this House who are quick to defend the Prime Minister and the allegations regarding his possible criminality. Here we are today, and as I mentioned before, many Canadians are very concerned about the actions of the government, so we have made a very simple offer. It is to let us allow debate on this concurrence motion. We would then be happy to allow debate on the Budget Implementation Act, which I believe is scheduled for tonight. That is reasonable. The government talked often about how it was not engaged in a power grab. This is its chance to prove it. When it comes to the report we are discussing here today, we have incredibly important items and a host of recommendations, which were agreed to by a committee in the last Parliament and by the committee in this Parliament. There are 23 recommendations that have to do with accountability. We have recommendations related to cabinet decisions, decisions made in the minister's office, ministerial accountability, record-keeping when it comes to lobbyists, the outsourcing of projects, due diligence reports, contracting with shell companies, answers on the specifics related to what happened with the WE charity and some of the questions that are still outstanding on that, the fact that those who speak French in this country were unfairly not being given the same access to federal programs, more on lobbying, giving powers to the Commissioner of Lobbying to ensure that they have the teeth to get the job done in accountability and integrity within lobbying in Canada, volunteer programs, compliance with orders of the House of Commons, the powers of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and the use of new technology and some of the challenges associated with that. I could go on, but I would note I am running out of time. I am certainly curious as to why the Liberals seem to be so bent on not talking about what I would suggest are important issues. Certainly, we have the committee, which the Liberals say often are the masters of their own destiny. When it comes to what we have before us today, it is vitally important that we are allowed to have the debates in this place that matter to Canadians and integrity, ethics and accountability are at the core of that. As I mentioned, this is the chance for the Liberals to demonstrate this or be shown to have been entirely misleading over the course of the Motion No. 11 debate. We can move forward with a discussion about how Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and I would note to the Prime Minister, because I think he gets confused about this, we are loyal to the Crown and the country, not loyal to the Prime Minister. Conservatives are working hard on behalf of Canadians and the place that we have within this institution. Therefore, this debate matters. I move, seconded by the member for Calgary Shepard: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following: “the third report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, presented on Thursday, March 31, 2022, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the committee for further consideration, provided that: (a) the committee be instructed to (i) make every effort possible to receive evidence from Ben Chin, Rick Theis and Amitpal Singh, the witnesses who did not comply with the House's order of Thursday, 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’; (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.

670 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 65 - May/5/22

Mr. Mike Morrice

May/5/22 6:38:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, while I respect the parliamentary secretary, if approving the Baie du Nord project is what accountability looks like in Canada's climate policy, then we have a problem. Yes, much of what he said is true, and he did not mention Baie du Nord in his response. There is $9.1 billion in the emissions reduction plan, and I am cheering that on, but at the same time, there is $7.1 billion between now and 2030 in a new fossil fuels subsidy, a tax credit for carbon capture and storage, which again only further locks us into going in the wrong direction. When we talk about Baie du Nord, we see why this talk of a cap on emissions is insufficient. We can cap emissions all we want, but if we are not going to look at production, if we are not going to be honest about the reality of the need to leave some reserves in the ground for a livable planet for our children, nothing else really matters.

173 words