Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Shepard. The ask in Bill C-2 is $7.4 billion, and the bill is being rushed through the House, with little time at committee to deal with another $7.4 billion expenditure. A lot of these types of situations have happened over the last couple of years, since the pandemic started. I recall that back in early 2021, there was a $52-billion spending bill, and the government wanted Parliament's approval in literally four hours, with little opportunity for oversight and little opportunity to provide any sort of transparency or accountability on that spending. Now, here with Bill C-2, we are being asked to approve $7.4 billion. I want to focus on a couple of points today. Number one is who is left out in Bill C-2. I think it is very important that we recognize who is being left out in the bill. Second, I want to focus on the issue of accountability, transparency and oversight, which are severely lacking in the bill. The member for Carleton asked finance department officials where this money was coming from, and all we heard were crickets. He suggested that maybe there is a money tree in this country that the government is picking money from, but there was no answer. These are the types of questions we could deal with if we had more time. I am really fortunate to come from the riding of Barrie—Innisfil, which is also known as “Terminal 4”. There are a lot of Pearson airport employees and airline, travel and tourism employees who live in my riding. Many of them have felt anxiety not just over the past 18 months in trying to pick up the pieces of their lives as the travel and tourism industry has been decimated, but also over the fact that in the last couple of days, we have seen advisories from the Government of Canada on travel. They are really curbing back some of the decisions that Canadians have made to travel over the holidays, to travel internationally to warm destinations, which typically Canadians do, or to travel to simply visit family in the United States. A lot of that is not happening, and it is having a serious impact on our travel and tourism industry, particularly the airline sector, which we know has been hard hit over the course of the last 21 months, and those in the travel adviser business, such as travel agents, many of whom have been left out over the course of the last 21 months from many of the benefits the government has provided for relief. Now they are being left behind again. I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism say that they will have to apply just like everybody else, but from the discussions I have had with the Association of Canadian Independent Travel Advisors, applying simply does not work. These people did not qualify because many of them are independent travel advisers. They do not have brick-and-mortar properties and do not have storefronts. They work out of their homes. However, they provide $2.4 billion in revenue, at least they did in 2019 before the pandemic hit. Many of the 12,000 independent travel advisers in this country, like Heather Kearns and Charlene Caldwell from my riding, did not qualify for any of the pandemic benefits. As a result, they have seen a drop, like a drop off a cliff, in their businesses. Oftentimes, they are paid for bookings when those trips happen, so members can imagine what it would be like if we booked travel and that travel got cancelled and clawed back, or if we did not get paid for anything we thought we would be booking. It has been an awfully difficult 20 months for travel advisers, and it is going to continue that way. What Bill C-2 does not address directly is the demand from the Association of Canadian Independent Travel Advisors, which is for some sort of bridge financing to make it much easier for them to access government programs. I think that is a failure of Bill C-2. The other thing, which we have heard about from seniors, is the GIS clawback. Many seniors are suffering right now. There is an affordability crisis going on this country, and the cost of home heating, gas, groceries and hydro is disproportionately affecting seniors not just in my riding but right across this country. Many seniors thought to apply for the CERB, and as a result of receiving it, they are now finding out there are GIS clawbacks. The government does address this, but not until May 2022, so many of those seniors will continue to suffer as a result of the affordability and “just inflation” crisis that is going on right now. Those are a couple of what I think are serious faults in this piece of legislation. Over the last couple of days, I have heard, as I expect many colleagues in the House have, from travel advisers and other people in the travel and tourism industry about how worried they are over the latest travel advisories, particularly at a time when Canada will be seeing its busiest period of travel. Many of those travel advisers will simply lose more income, so we should have broader supports available in Bill C-2 for the travel and tourism industry. They are not addressed in this piece of legislation, and those independent travel advisers will be severely impacted by this. The other thing we want to see in Bill C-2, and this to me is extremely troubling, is the level of accountability and transparency that was requested by members of the Conservative Party at the finance committee, in particular for oversight. A FINTRAC report was done, and I will remind Canadians that FINTRAC stands for the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada. Its job is to monitor literally every financial transaction that happens in this country. It issued a report, and it was not until an ATIP request made by Mr. Ken Rubin, who is an Ottawa researcher, was received that the extent, scope and scale of the CERB fraud occurring in this country was known. What the Conservatives were looking for, as part of the amendments to Bill C-2 that were not included in the latest iteration of the bill, was an audit, based on the FINTRAC report, by the Auditor General, a review of some of the CRA actions that have gone on to investigate this simply to pursue the fraudsters. I will provide some examples of what was in the FINTRAC report, and why this is so disturbing and should be disturbing to Canadians, given the scale, scope and amount of fraud. Who was involved in the fraud is also important. This report was first published in 2020 by FINTRAC. Do members know how many investigations have been done by the Canada Revenue Agency since? It is zero in 21 months. That in and of itself is disturbing. What the Conservatives were trying to do was bring amendments to the bill so we could investigate that on behalf of Canadians, or at least allow the agencies responsible for investigations to look into the issue of fraud. The FINTRAC report is an interesting read, and I encourage everybody to read it. I will certainly post it on some of my social media sites. There is a great summary in it, but a lot of the information is redacted. I know my time is short, so I will quickly summarize some of the challenges that went on with FINTRAC and why it was important that they be investigated. It states: Reporting Entities indicated that criminal organizations, using stolen IDs and individuals recruited via social media, are operating "CERB scams" in certain cities.... This was in 2020, so it is in the present tense. It continues: ...prepaid cards are loaded with CERB benefits and other laundered funds. Reporting Entities indicated that clients who do not meet the CERB eligibility requirements, or who are fully employed, still apply for, and receive CERB benefits.... A Reporting Entity noted that scammers are using stolen personal identifying information to apply online for CERB/GST refunds and arranging for funds to be deposited onto prepaid/reloadable cards. We also heard about the gangs and criminal organizations that were using the CERB to fund the purchase of guns. This is critically important to Canadians. The government shovelled billions of dollars out the door with no oversight, accountability or transparency. We as Conservatives think it is important to investigate this. There is one other thing I will say. The other day at the ethics committee I asked for members to consider a motion to look into the over $600 billion in pandemic spending that has not been accounted for by the government. That motion was rejected at committee by the Liberal members. We need to get to the bottom of this so that Canadians have confidence and trust in the government and to make sure we understand where the money is going. It is disappointing to see that amendments on accountability and transparency were not part of the amendments accepted for Bill C-2, and it is difficult to understand why.

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting point, although I am not fully aware of the details of that particular case. More broadly, the government, in its haste to get this money out the door, should have been considering oversight. It should have been considering accountability and transparency as well. It should have been putting in place measures allowing investigative bodies and jurisdictions that have authority, such as the CRA and others, to investigate more quickly where this money had gone. As I said in my speech, the CRA has not yet investigated this, despite the fact that FINTRAC has identified thousands of cases of fraud with the CERB. No charges have been laid at this point. This speaks to the will of the government to really investigate this. Is it just going to turn a bind eye to it? We need to get to the bottom of this, and the amendments we proposed for Bill C-2 would have certainly helped in that regard.

Madam Speaker, certainly affordability is a critical issue, and nowhere more than in my riding of Barrie—Innisfil, where young people and seniors are being priced out of the housing market. There is definitely a need to look into this. In fact, several of our proposals in the latest election campaign addressed the issue of affordability so we could look at foreign ownership and make sure we are doing all we can to make housing affordable in this country. We will continue to push on affordability. The number one issue I hear about is housing attainability and affordability, and it is coupled with the fact that now we are seeing inflation at 18- or 19-year highs. Things are becoming increasingly unaffordable for Canadians, and a lot of that has to do with the policies of the government.

Madam Speaker, I spent a lot of my time talking about independent travel advisers and there is a reason for that. I spent a tremendous amount of time dealing with the national organization and local travel advisers. They do feel left out and they have been left out. Many of them have not been able to access some of the benefits. This is a $2.4-billion industry and 12,000 people are independent travel advisers. We cannot just cast them aside. We have to make sure they are supported. They have not been supported, and we will continue to be a voice, not just in this place but anywhere we go, to support them across this country.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the chamber to thank those in Barrie—Innisfil who do so much to help others in our community. This Christmas season, I want to thank the many individuals, charities and community organizations that help those in need. It has been a tough year on local charities, so please consider them when gift-giving. Many business owners and their families in Barrie—Innisfil support these organizations, but it has been a difficult 21 months for local businesses. That is why I am asking residents to shop local and support local this Christmas. Canada's economic recovery will be led by our businesses, the people they employ, the products and services they produce in every sector and every region of our country. Business owners are our neighbours, our friends, community leaders and provide employment for millions of Canadians. Let us support business by shopping local this Christmas season. Finally, on behalf of my wife Liane, our children Jeff, Court, Matt and Mitch, and, of course, our little Miss Molly, our golden retriever, I wish everyone in Barrie—Innisfil a merry Christmas, happy holidays and a healthy, safe and prosperous new year.

Mr. Speaker, a sole-source contract to rent property as a welcoming centre at the illegal border crossing at Roxham Road was handed out to a Quebec businessman by the Liberals. The lucrative sole-source deal comes after $23,000 in donations was given to the Liberal Party. Now, before the Liberals stand up and say, “Yes, but he donated to the Conservative Party," I note the Conservative Party never greased this donor's palms with a lucrative sole-source contract. Would someone from the side opposite just stand up and admit that this was a kickback for donating to the Liberal Party?

Madam Speaker, in Quebec that is called graisser la patte. It has been an “all you can eat” buffet for connected Liberal insiders and cronies during the pandemic, who lined up to gorge on half a billion dollars in COVID spending, much of it untendered and sole source. With WE, Frank Baylis and SNC, the list is long, and here we have another example. The sponsorship scandal will look like a speck of sand in the desert compared with what has gone on. Yesterday the Liberals rejected my motion at the ethics committee to investigate COVID contracts, saying they did not want to stir the pot. I wonder why. Why do they not just get it off their chest and admit that this was payback for a Liberal donation?

Mr. Speaker, I would not expect anything less from the Liberals. Last week, I asked the CRA to investigate a claim that the Liberal member for Calgary Skyview was directing people on how to fraudulently claim the CERB in his riding before he was elected as an MP. According to The Canadian Press, seven in 10 people over 15 in the riding received the CERB, one of the highest percentages in the country. When I asked the minister about this, she said that she takes all claims of CERB fraud seriously, even if it is against a member of the Liberal caucus, and will launch an investigation. Can the minister inform the House whether she has in fact started an investigation against the member for Calgary Skyview?

Mr. Speaker, I ask members to imagine a member of the Liberal caucus being accused of directing his constituents on how to fraudulently claim the CERB. According to a caller on a talk radio show the day after the election, the member had encouraged numerous people to claim CERB when they did not qualify by splitting self-employment income with family members. In fact, in one area of the member's riding, seven in 10 residents over the age of 15 received the CERB, which is one of the highest concentrations in Canada, according to a Canadian Press report. If this is true, how seriously would the Prime Minister take claims of advising people to commit fraud against one of his MPs?

Mr. Speaker, I am awfully glad to hear the minister say that there is no tolerance for fraud. The caller also stated that he had, for that savvy advice, given the member of Calgary Skyview his vote, and he was telling everyone to do the same. Asked by the host what he would do if the CRA came knocking, he said that he would send them straight to his office because it was all his idea, and everybody in Skyview did it, everyone 15 years of age and older. Does the Prime Minister agree that CERB fraud is a serious issue, and that the possibility of a member of the Liberal caucus directing people to commit fraud requires an investigation?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In relation to the question I asked in question period, I would like to table two documents. One is a transcript from News Talk 770 CHQR's Shaye Ganam's show on September 21, and it is in relation to a discussion the host had about the fraudulent claims of CERB. The second is a letter that I wrote yesterday to the National Leads Centre of the Canada Revenue Agency. With unanimous consent, I would like to table those.

Madam Speaker, if people listened to the member's speech, they will excuse me for saying that he painted a rosy picture of what was going on at the Kabul airport. In fact, having dealt with this situation for the better part of a month and a half, some of the correspondence I was getting said that it was literally a “Walking Dead situation” at the airport, thousands trying to get through the gate, some people being shot, others hung up in the barbed wire, and women and children were fainting. How can the member reconcile that story with what the actual facts on the ground were telling us, that there was complete chaos going on? How does he reconcile that? What this committee is designed to do is to get to the bottom of what happened, to ensure that it never happens again and to look to the future to help Afghanistan nationals come to Canada.

Madam Speaker, on July 14, I sat on a Zoom call with a former Canadian interpreter from Helmand Province. On that call were several of my colleagues, including the hon. members for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and York—Simcoe. It was an emotional call. It was an interpreter who was pleading for his life. The Taliban were 500 metres away, and they were hunting those who had helped allied forces during the Afghanistan war. I was in my constituency office, and after that call I actually had tears streaming down my face. My staff asked me what had happened. I said I had just heard the most horrific pleas that I could ever hear. From that time, we saw Afghanistan descend into chaos. We all know the stories about what happened at the airport, but through it all there were Canadians and Canadian veterans. In my former role as critic for Veterans Affairs I was dealing directly with those veterans, and being supplied with hundreds of names of those whose lives were in jeopardy in Afghanistan and who had helped our Canadian Forces. I was supplying those names directly to the minister at the time. I was getting phone calls at 3 a.m. from Afghanistan. Somehow my cellphone number got out. The callers were begging for help, and all I could do was supply their names to the minister directly. I thank the minister for taking my calls and being there at a time when people needed him the most. There were veterans, volunteers, NGOs and individuals like Zarmina and Khalil Nekzai in my riding of Barrie—Innisfil. Zarmina had gone through the situation with the Taliban earlier and had escaped Afghanistan in advance of Taliban rule. She told me she came out on a donkey to another country and found a life in Canada. She had given back to young girls in Afghanistan by trying to educate them and trying to get them to play hockey. She came into my office many times crying, begging and pleading for any way that we could help those hockey girls of Kabul to come to Canada, and asking that we do everything we could. We saw the descending chaos and it should have been no surprise to anyone here, even the government, that the Americans had already concluded that they were going to leave Afghanistan in September. There should have been better planning. We need to know this, and this is why this committee is so important. We need to find out what happened from the time the Americans announced that they were going to depart Afghanistan to the time that Afghanistan actually fell. What were the actions of the government at that time? What were the Liberals doing other than preparing for an election that nobody wanted? I will remind the House that at the time it was not just that Afghanistan was falling: Wildfires in B.C. were decimating the interior of British Columbia. The priority of the government at that time was to call an election, when it should have been dealing with all of these other issues. The desperation, the despair and the anxiety that were coming to my office, and I am sure the offices of colleagues in the House, were incredible to deal with. In fact, I did not start my campaign until two and a half weeks after the election was called because this was my focus. I was supplying as many names as I could. People not just in my riding, but all across Canada and around the world were giving me names to get to the Liberal government so they could be helped in Afghanistan before everything fell. There were others. There was the Veterans Transition Network, which included Corey Shelson, a former army officer who served in Afghanistan. There were people on the ground in Afghanistan: Canadian Armed Forces veterans who were desperately putting their lives in jeopardy trying to help people at that time. Through the whole process, as we have heard several examples of today, many Canadian military personnel were on the ground; however, diplomatic officials and consular officials had been pulled back. There was nowhere for these people to go. In fact, I have heard stories. I have emails that I will read into the record about some of the desperate attempts by people to get to the airport and what they were being told by the government about where they needed to be. In one case, people were told to go to a hotel and that there would be Canadian officials there. There were no Canadian officials there. People were risking their lives going from the safe house that they were in to this hotel, and when they got to the hotel American forces were there and they were told, “No, we're not taking any Canadians at this point.” Where were the Canadian officials? They were nowhere to be found. In one case, the 82-year-old father of a lady in my riding left that hotel only to be beaten up by members of the Taliban because they figured out why he went there. We need to know why these types of things happened. Another email I got stated, “Hi there, I've emailed IRCC dozens of times and now I'm asking for your help. Please, please don't let me get killed. Please help me get my family out of Afghanistan. I dedicated my life for Canada and helping any Canadian that crossed my path. Please help me.” Another said, “How long do we have to stay at this airport? This is two days. There's no water. There's no bathroom, additional security. We did not sleep and we will be dying with the situation. We are close to this gate. Where are the Canadians to help us?” I cannot say what he says next, but those are the instructions that he received. This is why we have to get to the bottom of where those failures were. Why was the government too distracted at the time to help not just those Canadians who were still in Afghanistan, but those who were vulnerable? The instructions people received read, “You are receiving this message from Global Affairs Canada, Consular Services with regards to an assisted departure from Afghanistan. Please find attached a letter of facilitation which may assist you to clear checkpoints to access the Karzai Airport. We also remind you of the following guidance for the airport: Please proceed to the north gate.” We know the stories of the north gate. There were people getting hung up in barbed wire, and people being shot because they were being identified by the Taliban at that time. The instructions continued, “Wear red if you have it.” That identified people as Canadian. That is exactly what was going on. The instructions that were coming in were putting our people in peril. They also instructed, “Make your way to the front of the crowd and identify yourself as Canadian.” How could they do that when there were thousands of people who were doing the same thing? I think of Sam, whose family was there. They were told to go to the airport. They were given notice that there was a flight available to them at the airport, and they had two hours to get to the airport. They sent me the video of themselves driving to the airport. People were being shot in front of them and they were driving over dead bodies. They felt so at risk that they did not make their flight, but turned back and went home to a safe place. Speaking of safe places, we know that our Canadian interpreters, those who are vulnerable, had safe houses, but they were not being funded by the government. They were being funded by private organizations and private donors raising billions of dollars. At a time when those safe houses needed to be extended, what did the Liberals do, despite being asked to fund them? The government did not cancel them, but it did not fund the extension of them. This means that right now those interpreters and their families whose houses have been blown up by the Taliban have nowhere to go. They are living out in the open in the middle of winter, being hunted down by the Taliban. We need to know why these types of things could happen. The government members can gloss over it all they want. They can paint as rosy a picture as they want. However, Afghan Canadians and others trying to help those who were vulnerable, those interpreters and others who helped us, know the truth: that it was a government that was in chaos in dealing with this situation. We need to know, through the proposed committee, why this situation happened so that it never happens again. We also need to better understand how we can help those who are still struggling to leave Afghanistan to come to this country. I know the government talks about politicization and the politics of this, but since when is demanding answers and getting answers politicization of an issue? That is what Afghans and Afghan Canadians expect us to do; that is what our veterans expect us to do, and damn it we are going to do it.

Madam Speaker, given the context of the motion, it speaks to exactly the issue the member is concerned about. There is the potential to redact documents. In fact, the parliamentary law clerk would review all of the documents before this committee. I do question why the hon. member is concerned. Why is there concern from the government over getting to the bottom of what happened? Why are they concerned about accountability? Why are they concerned about the truth of what happened? As I said, Afghan Canadians know the truth and veterans and the service organizations that have tried to help Afghan nationals during this unbelievably chaotic time know the truth as well. It is therefore time that Canadians know the truth that their government failed not just the people of Afghanistan, but also Canadians.

Madam Speaker, one thing haunts me the most, and still does every single day: How many of those names I gave belong to people who are no longer alive? I do not know. I am not in the government and I was not in the government. All I can do is pass those names on to the minister and his staff. I acknowledge that they were well received, but I just do not know. The challenge right now in Afghanistan is making sure that we get visas for the people. It is even difficult for Afghan nationals to get passports at this point because they are being pegged. They are being identified by the Taliban as wanting to leave the country. Then we have our partners in Pakistan and elsewhere who on some days keep the borders closed so that Afghan nationals cannot get into the country. The bottom line is that unless Afghan nationals are out of the country, they cannot come to Canada. There is no easy pathway for them. The committee could study how to make things easier to make that happen.

Madam Speaker, do members know where I get the sense of urgency the member speaks about? It is from those who previously escaped Taliban rule. They know how difficult this is going to be for young girls. They know how difficult this is going to be for vulnerable communities and ethnic minorities. They know their lives are at risk. That is what makes this urgent, and that is what makes this committee so relevant to the situation.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on Bill C-3 this evening. It is a very important piece of legislation that requires not just the attention of Parliament, but also committee scrutiny. Let me begin by saying that I believe that Bill C-3 should have been split into two separate bills. We are dealing with two separate issues here, one as it relates to health care workers and protests outside health facilities, the other as it relates to federally regulated sick days and the provision of 10 days for federally regulated workers. I am hopeful that, when this does get to committee, it is going to get the scrutiny that it deserves. Let me also say that we are so fortunate in central Ontario to have an incredible regional health facility. The Royal Victoria Hospital is world class in its ability to provide care, not just acute care but all kinds of care led by Janice Skot, who is the CEO of the hospital. She recently announced her retirement next year and I wish her all the best. She certainly has seen the transition of the Royal Victoria Hospital over the 17 years that she has been there into this world-class facility. In fact, just recently I was fortunate that we were in Innisfil to talk about the expansion of the Royal Victoria Health Centre into the southern tier of our municipalities of Barrie and Innisfil. It is expected that, by the time it is fully functional, it could service up to 250,000 people a year. This is an important part of our community. It is an important part of all of the regions of central Ontario and does a great service to our communities. I consider many of the people who work there friends of mine; doctors, nurses, great people who do terrific work and have been there on the front lines since this pandemic started with great adversity, great anxiety. I cannot imagine, at the height of the COVID-19 situation, these doctors and nurses and all of those who work in this health care facility not only having to worry about looking after the patients coming into the facility, but also having the anxiety about how to protect themselves and their families. I heard many stories of health care workers going home and changing in the garage. They had moved their washer and dryer into the garage so that they would limit the risk of potentially transmitting COVID-19 to their family members. When vaccines came, it was a sense of relief for many health care workers. There was a challenge in the beginning. I recall having a discussion with the then minister of health, in fact I would call it an emergency meeting, when our community was running out of vaccines, not just for health care workers, but also for long-term care facilities. We can talk about anxiety. Many health care workers who were in the process of getting their second vaccine were told that their appointments had been cancelled. I called the health minister to ask her on an emergency basis if we could get the vaccines that were needed within our community not just for health care workers, but also for the long-term care providers as well. Let us not just look at the health care workers and the work that they have done and how they should be free of intimidation and harassment in their workplace, but let us also acknowledge the long-term care workers within those long-term care facilities because they had equally anxious times during the height of COVID-19. I want to focus on a couple of things, not the least of which is the divisive rhetoric that has gone on. We saw this at the height of the election campaign when there were not just protests in front of health care facilities, but there were also protests on the political front as well. We saw some of those protests play out on the nightly news. We saw them in health care facilities. I believe that every health care worker should be free of any form of harassment, particularly when they are going in to do the job. How did we get here? There is this divisive rhetoric, and we are now in a position where we are talking about implementing legislation to protect health care workers when we have never been in this point before. Obviously, we have heard through other speakers today that we have criminal legislation on the books for dealing with protests, much of which is dealt with at the local level. Regarding this divisiveness that has gone on, I certainly saw it through the election campaign. There has been misinformation, and I would suggest that there has not been enough information on the part of government to allow people to make an informed decision on the issue of vaccines. I happen to think that everybody should be vaccinated. I am vaccinated; in fact, I have my booster shot scheduled for December 19. Vaccines are an important tool in the tool box in ensuring that people are safe. However, there are many people out there, almost five million Canadians over the age of 12, who have not received a vaccine at this point for various reasons. I have been dealing with this in my office, with people calling. They are not anti-vaxxers; they are just concerned about their health and the potential risks associated with vaccines. Perhaps they do not have enough information to make an informed decision. This is where the role of government comes in, to provide as much information as we can to people so that they make the right decision, to get vaccinated. Many of them right now are in a position where they are at risk of their lives and livelihoods being lost and actually being unable to provide for their families. A year ago, when we did not have vaccines, we had lots of other tools in the tool box. We were talking about rapid testing, physical distancing, wearing a mask and washing our hands. Rapid testing seems to have fallen off a cliff right now. To accommodate those who perhaps still have that vaccine hesitancy and are not getting a vaccine, it is an important tool in the tool box that we need to be using. I talked to someone in my riding about this recently. His entire family is vaccinated at this point, but he still has that hesitancy. I am using this example among many that I have received. He was told recently by his employer, after working there for 25 years, that as of this past November 1, he would have lost his job because he was unvaccinated. He has actually been extended now to January 29, and the reason he was extended is that his company is entering into a very busy Christmas period, so it cannot afford that loss of employment. In the meantime, the company has told him that it is going to rapid test him throughout that whole process. Therefore, he is living with the backdrop of losing his employment and, quite frankly, he is scared, because he has family, including grandchildren. That reasonable accommodation that I spoke about still needs to happen today when it comes to making sure we are reasonably accommodating those individuals who at this point have vaccine hesitancy. We can do a much better job of educating and encouraging people to get vaccinated. The other part of this legislation relates to the federal regulation on providing up to 10 sick days. I would agree with my hon. colleagues that people should never have to choose between going to work and staying home without pay when sick. Making sure we can accommodate those people who are in the unfortunate position of making that decision needs to be addressed as well. As it relates to federally regulated industries having this requirement, there are many collective agreements that cover sick leave, but a small percentage do not. Those collective agreements can speak for themselves when dealing with this issue, but I will be interested to see, when this goes to committee, what we hear from all the stakeholders as it relates to the sick days. In conclusion, a tremendous amount of anxiety still exists among everyone in this country, whether they are vaccinated or not. We have to tone down the divisive rhetoric. We have to make sure that in all cases, unequivocally, we are supporting our health care workers, who are doing such tremendous work to keep us safe. However, we also have to tone down the rhetoric and make sure we educate people that it is important to be vaccinated in order to deal with this crisis.

Madam Speaker, to my point about this divisive rhetoric, there is no greater example than what we just saw. I will go ever further. The Prime Minister has fed into this divisiveness. Members may recall when earlier this year the Prime Minister said that there would be no requirement for mandatory vaccines. Then, the day before he called an unnecessary election, he said there would be a requirement for mandatory vaccines. One thing I have found out in my life is that the more we push people, the more they lean back. Instead of the divisive rhetoric, which we just saw a perfect example of, why are we not working with people to better educate them and encourage them even more? If they are still hesitant, why are we not accommodating them? Why are we not accommodating them even more?

Madam Speaker, I made it very clear in my speech this afternoon just how important vaccines are. It was important for me in terms of my community and my family. I believe in the efficacy of vaccines, but the difficulty lies in the fact that there are still people who are unconvinced. I do not know what their reasons are. I use Scott as an example. His whole family is vaccinated and yet he is still a little concerned from a health standpoint. Why are we not encouraging those people with more information, encouraging them to get vaccinated with proper information instead of this divisive rhetoric? That is the point I am making. There is too much divisiveness. Let us work to encourage people to get vaccinated. That should be the role of leaders in this country.

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear my hon. colleague stand up in this House. There was an interesting point that he did bring up and that was the issue of false information. During the election campaign, the finance minister and deputy leader of the Liberal Party was found to have engaged in false information on Twitter. In fact, she was marked as having manipulated the media for spreading falsehoods against her political opponents. I wonder if he has a comment about that.

Madam Speaker, as a product of Quebec myself, that was beautiful. I know, as we have stood in this House over the last several days, one of the things this member in particular has been talking about is the issue of guns and gangs, which is enveloping major cities across this country, including the city of Montreal. The throne speech did not speak that much about the issue of guns and gangs, and I wonder if the member recognizes that. What are some of the solutions the member has for solving that problem?

Mr. Speaker, I was born in Montreal, and I am from a francophone family. My father, Jean‑Guy Brassard, is a real francophone. Montreal is where all my relatives live, on the French side. It is a tough question. The issue of guns and gangs is an issue of guns and gangs. It is not an issue of law-abiding firearms owners. They are not running around the streets of Montreal, Vancouver or Toronto shooting up the place. The issue of guns coming into the country illegally needs to be addressed. In our platform we talked about guns and gangs and how to address them, such as giving more resources to police forces across the country and setting up special task forces. Those are the things we need to do, not go after law-abiding firearms owners, who are the most responsible and have the strictest gun laws in the world. Illegal guns and illegal gangs are the problem in this country, and it is time the government and all parliamentarians get serious about dealing with that issue.

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today. I will be sharing my time with the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington. We are very excited to be here in the House. If you will indulge me for a couple of minutes, there are a couple of people I need to thank, but first let me recognize that the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington is the cousin of the mayor of the town of Innisfil, one of the towns I represent. Mayor Lynn Dollin will, I think, be watching tonight. There are so many people to thank. This is the first time I have been able to rise, in debate, in the House of Commons in the 44th Parliament. This is the third time the people of Barrie—Innisfil have sent me here to be their representative. I am very humbled by this. Since 2006, I have served publicly, first as a city councillor for nine years in the city of Barrie, and now for six years as the member of Parliament for Barrie—Innisfil. I am very, very honoured and humbled to be that member. No one can do this without a team, a big team of not just campaign volunteers, but also friends and families. I would like to acknowledge a few of them right now, if I can, such as Rob Decker, who was my campaign manager, who worked with a group of people that really organized terrifically during the campaign. Then there were Robin McClennan and some of my “big sign guys”, as I call them: Al, Richard, John, Kevin, Barry and, of course, my dad, who has been there since the start of my being here politically. There were numerous “little sign people”. There has not been an election that I have been involved with since 2015 where I have had more signs placed. There were more requests coming in and it was just awfully difficult to keep up with them. Of course, it has been a hell of a 20 months, frankly. My constituency staff have been there consistently on the front lines, dealing with issues related to the pandemic. I really want to acknowledge them: Susan, Sara, Brandon and Jennifer, and former staff Rhea, Andrea and Chelsea, and of course my family. There is no way any of us could have placed ourselves in this symbol of democracy to work on behalf of the people we represent, not just within our ridings but across this country, if not for the strong support of family. I thank my mom Doreen, my dad Jean-Guy, my sister Cathy, my sister Linda and, of course, my family: my wife Leanne and my four kids. They have been there since the beginning, not just of my previous career as a firefighter but also of my current career as the member of Parliament for Barrie—Innisfil. I cannot do this without them, particularly my wife, Leanne. Oftentimes, when we run locally within our ridings, we fail to recognize those people who run against us, but I want to recognize them: Lisa-Marie Wilson, who ran for the Liberal Party, and Aleesha Gostkowski, who ran for the New Democratic Party. I also want to acknowledge Corrado Brancato, who ran for the People's Party. I want to acknowledge them, because it is difficult to run and put one's name on a ballot. Shortly after the election, I sat down with Aleesha Gostkowski of the NDP. I had a coffee with her. We talked about the issues that came up during the election. On many of the issues we talked about, we found we had similar concerns. Those issues were housing affordability, housing attainability and food security for people who are finding it hard right now because of the financial pressures they are facing. I would add one more, which would be energy security. Right now, we are seeing the cost of everything go up and an inflation crisis that is impacting broadly many people in my constituency, particularly in the area of affordable housing. Rents have been increasing. It is becoming harder and harder for people not just to put a roof over their head, but also to maintain a roof over their head, and no more so than with young people. There is a housing crisis that is happening in this country that we have not seen in several generations. It is not just housing. It is the cost of everything. The cost of the necessities of life is going up as a result of what we are seeing with these inflationary pressures. Gas, food, heat and hydro are all going up, and it is becoming increasingly difficult. The anxiety that exists today among the people I represent, affordability anxiety, is real. I know that throughout the course of the speeches in response to the Speech from the Throne, we have heard about that, not just from the opposition side but from the government side as well. The House of Commons is a place where we come as the people's voices. I have been receiving, and I am sure my colleagues have, numerous emails about the affordability crisis that is happening and how it is directly impacting people. I will make them short, but it is important to read them into the record to hear that it is not just me talking about this. These are, through me, the people I represent. A young man named Justin emailed me. He said, “People my age are” for lack of a better word, it is unparliamentary, but he said, “screwed when it comes to housing. We are done for. We will be paying rent of $3,000 a month or more forever, unable to save anything for a home and barely making ends meet.” “I was distressed when I found out that developers are buying up detached houses with the aim of renting them at inflationary prices,” wrote Sherry. “I see Barrie is now the highest rent in the country. I am a homeowner. I know that rent is tied to the value of the house, but this is getting out of hand. There are many people in my age group, 25-35 and lower, whose dreams of owning a home have been dashed with the current situation,” wrote Sean. Speaking about the first-time homebuyers assistance, Greg wrote, “It is awfully difficult to access and it is time for a little non-partisan politics for the benefit of the country.” Kim wrote to me, “I have been trying to help two friends look for different places to rent in Simcoe County, and I cannot believe how difficult it has been for both of them. This is a serious issue.” This one is particularly troubling. Steph and Christie wrote, “We are a family of seven. Rent was $800 a month just two months ago, but the landlord sold the house to a new owner and now our rent is over $1,500 a month.” This is the kind of stuff that is happening not just in the riding of Barrie—Innisfil but right across the country. People are anxious. They are worried about affordability and how they are going to pay not just to put a roof over their head, but for the necessities of life. In the throne speech, little mention is made of the issue of agriculture. There was nothing of any substance in agriculture. In the large rural area I represent, the producers are concerned about the increasing costs, not just of the products they need to farm but also of heating, dryers, barns, etc., and in particular the impact the carbon tax is having on those. There is very little mention of guns and gangs. I know we have been talking about that over the course of the last week, the difficulties that are going on and how there is not enough being done to deal with that issue. There is nothing about the military. One of the things that concerned me as well is that there is nothing about veterans either. As I said at the outset, it has been a hell of an 18 months. We have really been focusing on the expense side of the ledger through the different supports and programs that have been put in place, but we need to start looking at the revenue side of the ledger and how we are going to pay for this. The only way we are going to pay for this is through the power of the Canadian economy, and it will be led by business: the people they employ, the products they produce and the services they provide in every sector and every region of this country. It does not need big government intervention. We have to be competitive both domestically and internationally, and big government intervention will not allow for that to happen. We need to be focused and tactical in our approach to the way the economic recovery will happen. Lastly, as I conclude, this Christmas season businesses need our support more than ever. They have been devastated over the last 20 months, and I encourage everyone, not just in Barrie—Innisfil but right across this country, to make sure they shop local and support local as well.

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question, because we have seen asset valuations increase directly as a result of governments and banks printing money. It is indisputable at this point. I have spoken to local realtors, the Ontario Real Estate Association and the Canadian Construction Association. All of them say to organizations that we need to move to increase the supply. We need to make sure that houses are being built free of any regulatory burdens and make sure there is ample supply in the marketplace to ensure that young people can afford not just rent, but also the opportunity of home ownership. There are lots of things that all three levels of government can do, and we need to make sure we work together. That is why were sent here, and I believe this election, by its result, showed that Canadians want us to work together to solve these problems of great magnitude.

Mr. Speaker, nobody understands the issue of long-term care facilities more than I do. We went through the situation at Roberta Place. That is in my riding. All levels of government have a role to play, understanding that this is a provincial responsibility. However, we can work with the provincial governments to make sure that we have the type of standards that look after seniors in long-term care homes. Long-term care homes are getting better and are really doing a good job of protecting their seniors. My mother-in-law is in Roberta Place right now, and I feel extremely comfortable that she is there because of the staff and the people who are looking after her.

Mr. Speaker, in a radio interview with CBC Calgary on Friday morning, the member for Calgary Skyview suggested he and his team are under investigation by the Commissioner of Canada Elections for stealing campaign literature from Conservative candidate Jag Sahota. His reference to the team being investigated is new information that suggests there was an organized effort on the part of his campaign team to engage in widespread stealing of Sahota's campaign material. I have a simple question for the Prime Minister. If the member for Calgary Skyview is found guilty, will the Prime Minister remove him from caucus?

Mr. Speaker, it is really a simple answer, and that answer should be “yes”. Again we see the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister operating on a different set of rules. Jody Wilson-Raybould was booted from caucus for not wanting to interfere in a criminal prosecution, yet by his own admission and compelling video evidence showing the member for Calgary Skyview stealing campaign material and replacing it with false information, he gets to stay in caucus. I will ask again. Will the member for Calgary Skyview be removed from caucus if he is found guilty?

Mr. Speaker, I am sad to inform the House, and indeed all Canadians, that Elmore Cudanin, a patriarch and leader of the Filipino community in central Ontario, passed away earlier this month. Elmore lived in Barrie since 1973 and founded the Bayanihan Club of Simcoe County. He was a well respected and inspirational leader in our growing Filipino community, and they are saddened by the loss of this man of humility, great gentleness, wisdom and friendship. Whether he was helping newcomers or raising funds to help the Philippines after a devastating typhoon, Elmore was always there to help, inspire and motivate others. On behalf of myself, the member from Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte and Elmore’s dear friend, Brampton mayor Patrick Brown, our sincere condolences go out to Elmore’s wife of 57 years, Enoni, to his many family and friends, and to our Filipino community in central Ontario. Elmore was a proud Canadian and a proud Filipino. He will be missed. [Member spoke in Filipino and provided the following translation:] Rest in peace, our dear friend Elmore.

Mr. Speaker, during the election, the member for Calgary Skyview was caught on a doorbell camera and has been accused of not just removing campaign literature for Conservative candidate Jag Sahota, but replacing it with his own piece that provided wrong information about a polling location. The member is facing a $5,000 fine and up to six months in jail during an investigation that is continuing from the Commissioner of Canada Elections. Even with the low bar on ethics and conduct set by the Liberals and the Prime Minister over the last six years, does the Prime Minister think that this type of action from a member of his caucus is acceptable?

Madam Speaker, one of the things we dealt with at PROC, when we dealt with a virtual Parliament, was the prospect of exactly what is happening here, and that is the Liberal Party colluding with the NDP to expand the hybrid Parliament beyond what is normal. Some of the reasons that were given was the potential in those swing ridings for electioneering to occur. Would my colleague comment on that part of it when we should be in Ottawa in the seat of our democracy?

Madam Speaker, if we look at our hybrid Parliament, we can see that those MPs whose ridings are close by have many opportunities to speak. We are in a minority government and the other members from Quebec, the NDP and the Liberal Party have many opportunities to work in their ridings while the House is sitting and we are here, which gives them an electoral advantage. Can you comment on the opportunities that are there and on the fact that elections are perpetually being held in the constituencies?

Mr. Speaker, again, I would refer you, in keeping with the spirit of your ruling from last autumn, with respect to these issues. In any event, members can be reassured that my comments will be much shorter than the two hours or so of submissions that were made back in June. On March 25, this House adopted an order requiring the attendance of three witnesses before the ethics committee: Rick Theis, the Prime Minister's director of policy and cabinet affairs, was to appear on March 29; Amitpal Singh, the Deputy Prime Minister's policy adviser, was to appear on March 31; and Ben Chin, the Prime Minister's senior adviser, was to appear on April 8. The order also contemplated that the Prime Minister could appear on behalf of any or all of those individuals. In the end, as confirmed in appendix A of the second report, none of them appeared before the ethics committee. On page 82 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, various categories of known contempts of Parliament are noted, including “without reasonable excuse, failing to attend before the House or a committee after being summoned to do so” and “without reasonable excuse, disobeying a lawful order of the House or a committee”. Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, at page 239, outlines the importance of treating Mr. Theis, Mr. Singh and Mr. Chin's disregard of the March 25 order of the House as contempt. It states: Disobedience to rules or orders represents an affront to the dignity of the House, and accordingly the House could take action, not simply for satisfaction but to ensure that the House of Commons is held in the respect necessary for its authority to be vindicated. Without proper respect, the House of Commons could not function. A moment ago I quoted Bosc and Gagnon's caveat of “without reasonable excuse”. I would argue that could be addressed very quickly considering that none of the three witnesses offered any excuse for their absences. I do acknowledge that two cabinet ministers wrote to the ethics committee's chair to indicate they would appear on behalf of the witnesses, but that does not constitute an excuse from the witnesses personally. In the alternative, I would say it does not amount to a reasonable excuse. In the present case, it is quite clear the House adopted an order and the order was breached completely, since there was no effort by the witnesses to comply with it in any way, nor was any excuse advanced by them to be weighed by the House or for the committee to assess and report its findings. I now wish to turn to the government's role in preventing Mr. Theis, Mr. Singh and Mr. Chin from appearing as witnesses at the ethics committee. The government has freely admitted to this course of conduct, both in advance and at the time of the scheduled appearances. In his remarks to the House on March 25, the then government House leader said, at page 5234 of the Debates, “I say here today that ministers will instruct their staff not to appear when called before committees and that the government will send ministers instead to account for their actions.”

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating you on your election as Speaker. As we all know, it comes with a tremendous amount of responsibility to conduct oneself in an impartial manner, and I have the utmost confidence in your ability to do that. Congratulations once again. I am rising on a question of privilege today concerning the very troubling allegations published this month respecting the Clerk of the House. I am sure we have all watched or read Ashley Burke's reporting on these matters. It was based on at least 10 different credible sources as well as primary documents, but it is important to put the most pertinent details on the record of the House. Broadly speaking, the allegations fall into one of two distinct but no less troubling categories. One concerns a management style that has led to a rapid loss of top talent and deep experience from the table, and the other concerns demonstrations of partisanship through the Clerk's comments and actions. I understand that some of the complainants' letters, cries for help really, have even recently made it into some Parliament Hill inboxes, and it is my respectful view that all told, these allegations amount to a prima facie case of privilege, which the House must address urgently. I will be focusing on the partisanship allegations, but I cannot turn a blind eye to what the CBC confirmed. Three senior figures at the table took sick leave and then early retirement, while a fourth senior official is now on sick leave, owing to the Clerk's management style. According to CBC, Colette Labrecque-Riel—

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the onset, there was an opportunity for the government House leader to respond. He had indicated to Parliament that he would respond within a week of the question of privilege being presented by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. The government House leader did not respond, and in the spirit of a ruling that you made last autumn, it was suggested and ruled upon that at the earliest convenience of the House reconvening, a question of privilege could be raised from the previous question of privilege. That is the basis upon which I am presenting this question of privilege, and I believe, in the spirit of what you decided, that I should continue with it. In advance of the committee's March 29 meeting, the then government House leader sent a letter to the chair of the ethics committee, further to his statement to the House the week before, writing, “Accordingly, Mr. Rick Theis, Director of Policy to the Prime Minister, has been instructed to not appear before the committee. In his place, I will attend the meeting on behalf of the government on Monday, March 29th.” I would add that the ethics committee did not accept the then government House leader as a substitute witness in satisfaction of the order. Indeed, the committee, at its March 29 meeting, adopted a motion that states, “in relation to its study on questions of conflict of interest and lobbying in relation to pandemic spending, the committee invite [the minister] to appear.” He was treated as a separate witness, invited independently of and without any link to the March 25 House order. When the then government House leader appeared at the committee, he said, at page 13 of the evidence, “Based on the instructions I gave the other day, it was clear to Mr. Theis and other individuals that they wouldn't appear before committees and would be replaced by the appropriate ministers.” The minister even acknowledged, at page 8 of the evidence, that this was an unsatisfactory arrangement to the majority of the House, when he said, “I am aware that some of the members of this committee would rather be hearing from a staff member from the Prime Minister's Office, Mr. Rick Theis, but as I told the House last week and I want to make clear again, we fundamentally disagree with the decision.” The then associate minister of finance would go on to write the ethics committee chair similar letters in advance of Mr. Singh's March 31 scheduled appearance and Mr. Chin's April 8 scheduled appearance. A few moments ago, I referred to Bosc and Gagnon itemizing, at page 82, a list of known contempts of Parliament. I would add the following two, which have particular bearing here: “interfering with or obstructing a person who is carrying out a lawful order of the House or a committee” and “intimidating, preventing or hindering a witness from giving evidence or giving evidence in full to the House or a committee”. Bosc and Gagnon add, at page 1080, “Tampering with a witness or in any way attempting to deter a witness from giving evidence may constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege.” Quite clearly, Messrs. Theis, Singh and Chin were obstructed, deterred, prevented from and maybe even hindered in their ability of carrying out a lawful order of the House of Commons. Parliament's right to hear from the witnesses it has chosen, without obstruction, has been consistently asserted, dating back to February 21, 1700, when the English House of Commons adopted a resolution that said: That if it shall appear that any person hath been tampering with any Witness, in respect of his evidence to be given to this House, or any Committee thereof, or directly or indirectly hath endeavoured to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence, the same is declared to be a high crime and misdemeanour; and this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender. Much more recently, in Mr. Speaker Milliken's highly celebrated ruling on Afghan detainee documents, on April 27, 2010, he made some less well-remembered comments on witness matters, including, at page 2041 of the Debates, “the procedural authorities are clear that interference with witnesses may constitute a contempt.” Beyond the matter of the government's so-called instructions at page 13 of the ethics committee's March 29 evidence, the then government House—

Mr. Speaker, the arguments that have been made are profound on the part of the privilege and the rights of members. The Speaker will recall that some very serious allegations have been made that I believe breach the rights and privileges of members, not the least of which is a table officer acting in a partisan manner. I am not attempting to bring those issues in a manner that exacerbates the kinds of challenges that exist. What I am trying to do is lay out the facts as we now know them so the Speaker can make a prima facie case of the rights and privileges of the members being dealt with. At the end of what I am presenting, I offer an option and a solution that the Speaker can act on, but in the absence of presenting the facts as we know them and the facts as they came out, it is awfully difficult for me to talk in terms that would give the Speaker a better understanding to make a decision that is in the best interests of the House. We are dealing with not just the rights and privileges of our members, but also the confidence in the ability of our democracy and our democratic institutions to function in the manner in which they should. Some of those accusations, as salacious as they are and as uncomfortable as they may be, are very important points I need to make in this discourse to the Speaker. I would ask for some latitude with that and ask that I continue to lay these out not as a way to disrespect a certain individual but to present the information that is in front of me, and that has been presented to all of us as members, as it relates to our rights and privileges. I will continue in the manner in which I started, which is to lay out this case to suggest that the rights and privileges of members have been breached as they relate to the functioning of our democracy. As I continue, according to CBC, Colette Labrecque-Riel, a former clerk assistant, wrote to the Speaker that—

Mr. Speaker, without laying out properly the facts of this case as we know them, it is awfully difficult to present a prima facie case, but regrettably a cloud has been placed upon the House administration, and it certainly has given Conservatives cause to reflect on what extent to which we can collaborate. In fact, the same paranoia is, as we have seen, among House officials themselves. In my view, the House could and should refer this whole mess to the procedure and House affairs committee for full and proper investigation. As much as some of the reactions of the media have referred to some secret external review, it has been completely uncontested in the reporting that this review has never considered any of the partisan revelations that have come to light. To that end, we should bear in mind the words of Mr. Speaker Milliken's February 1, 2002 ruling, at page 8582 of the Debates, where he said: ...in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. Surely, when it appears that perhaps one side is not aligned with this, all sides should agree that the air needs to be cleared here. That is why the Conservatives last week asked for the Liberals to release all correspondence and records they had with the clerk so we could see whether the allegations were true or just how big that pipeline was, yet the Liberals have not been forthcoming to this point, which speaks volumes. That is why stronger tools are now needed to clear the air. A parliamentary committee is a strong vehicle to do just that, as Mr. Speaker Milliken ruled on October 15, 2001, at page 6085 of Debates: There is a body that is well equipped to commit acts of inquisition, and that is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which has a fearsome chairman, quite able to extract information from witnesses who appear before the committee, with the aid of the capable members who form that committee of the House. The House must stand up for its own dignity and self-respect. If you find a prima facie case of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared, as I said earlier, to move the appropriate motion for a committee study. This is the only way, I am afraid, that the cloud can be cleared and these foundation-shaking allegations can be either confirmed or purged so we can get to the real business of Parliament.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is in relation to a letter and a question of privilege related to the 43rd Parliament, which I wrote to you about, and I rise today just to be perfectly clear. When the House began its summer adjournment, the Chair had before it a question of privilege, which the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes had raised on June 10, with respect to the second report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics that had been presented to the House that morning. The then government House leader's parliamentary secretary told the House that he would come back within a week with a response, but the Liberals remained perfectly silent throughout June. Before a ruling could be delivered, the Prime Minister called an unnecessary federal election in pursuit of his own ambitions for power. By rising today, I am seeking to revive this question of privilege. As you recently heard from my House leader, Mr. Speaker, it is a well-established principle that one Parliament may address a contempt that was committed against one of its predecessors. He also spoke about importance of raising this matter today in keeping with the spirit of your ruling from last autumn. Since there has been some turnover in the membership of the House since June, I will give a recap of the issues raised in the original question of privilege. Very extensive submissions were put forward on June 10, so I would refer the Chair to those including—

Mr. Speaker, respectfully, it is difficult to sum up this question of privilege if the facts are not laid out and if the Chair is not reminded of some of the points that were brought up. In the first intervention on this question of privilege as it related to the previous Parliament, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes went on for two hours about this, laying out foundationally where the privilege had been broken. There is a need, respectfully, to summarize for the Chair exactly what the basis of this breach of privilege is. I would ask for some indulgence on this because it would be awfully difficult for me to go to the back end, as was the previous case, and really lay this out. I will note that when the explanation was made to the Chair as to why it was important to lay out these facts in addition to what was not dealt with in the last Parliament and the Speaker's own spirit of the ruling that it be presented at the first possible opportunity, that is precisely what I am doing here. I want to thank the Speaker for that. Much more recently, in Mr. Speaker Milliken's highly celebrated ruling, which I will repeat because this is the point where I was cut off, on the Afghan detainee documents on April 27, 2010, he made some much less well-remembered comments on witness matters, including at page 2041 of the Debates, where he stated, “the procedural authorities are clear that interference with witnesses may constitute a contempt.” Beyond the matter of the government's so-called instructions, at page 13 of the ethics committee's March 29 evidence, the then government House leader made the claim, “ministerial responsibility means that a minister can replace an employee who reports to the minister, not to Parliament.” That is just not so. In fact it is, in my view, a gross misstatement of several constitutional principles. Ministerial staff enjoy no special status when it comes to being summoned as a witness. Page 981 of Bosc and Gagnon states quite clearly, “The Standing Orders place no explicit limitation on this power. In theory, it applies to any person on Canadian soil.” While very limited categories of persons do have immunity from appearing, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel advanced the point that there is no immunity for political staff when they appeared before the ethics committee on April 12 and the committee thought fit, in appendix A of its second report, to include a summary of the evidence: Mr. Dufresne stated that political staff and public servants have no immunity, by virtue of their positions, from requests to testify before parliamentary committees. He also suggested that the topics of discussion and the different roles that ministers and political staff play have been factors for deciding which person is the more appropriate witness to testify on a given topic. In 2013, the United Kingdom Parliament's joint committee on parliamentary privilege considered a government green paper on parliamentary privilege, which, among other things, asked—

Mr. Speaker, I will refer you to the two-hour presentation from the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. I will also, with respect, sum up what the prima facie case is here. It is my respectful submission that seven prima facie contempts have been made here: One concerns each of the three witnesses who failed to appear before the ethics committee, one concerns the government's instructions to each of the three witnesses to disobey an order of the House of Commons and, finally, one concerns the misleading or prevaricating evidence given by the member for Waterloo to the two committees. I had not had an opportunity until this point to lay that out. I will again, Mr. Speaker, refer you to the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. I have presented two questions of privilege today. In fact, I believe that my privilege as a member to present these points of privilege has been violated. I have been interrupted many times during circumstances where I have been presenting very factually the cases as they related to the previous question of privilege and to this question of privilege. I will turn to you, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian of the rights and privileges of this Parliament because I know that a lot rests on your shoulders. My grievances here are not some partisan Liberal or Conservative dispute. They are far more fundamental than that. For those at the heart of the balance between the legislature and the executive in this case, it is about more than party politics. The centuries of parliamentary and constitutional evolution to which we are the inheritors centre on the struggle between the King and parliament. In the end, parliamentary supremacy was established as a bedrock principle of our democracy. From time to time, we are called upon to speak up for and defend these ancient but utterly critical principles of the democratic system that we enjoy as Canadians. I know that you will make the right decision in this case. As uncomfortable as these situations are for the government, it is paramount that we defend our democracy and that we defend our democratic institutions. You are the guardian of that, Mr. Speaker. It is for that reason I rise today, not just on the other issue, but on this one as well. I ask that you defend those principles.

Mr. Speaker, close to 200 well-wishers lined the streets leading to the home of Edwin Ng as he returned home earlier this month. Ng, a 48-year-old husband, father, grandfather and dedicated personal support worker, contracted COVID-19 when an outbreak devastated Roberta Place long-term care centre in January. He spent almost five months in hospital and underwent a double lung transplant. He was determined to survive and with support from his wife Samantha, family, friends and community and their faith in God, Edwin never gave up hope. Our community of Barrie—Innisfil is also sending its love and support to Troy Scott, owner of the Foodland in Stroud, who was recently hospitalized facing a similar battle as Edwin did after contracting COVID. In Barrie—Innisfil and communities across Canada, our resiliency, and in many cases our faith, has been tested with stories like Edwin's and Troy's. As we approach Canada Day inspired by these stories of resilience, let them serve as a reminder that as a nation, Canada has faced and overcome great challenges during our history when we are united, determined, compassionate and respectful, and we will do so again.

Madam Speaker, many Canadians are on bended knees under the weight of crushing debt and a new reality of inflation, the levels of which have not been felt for generations. The cost of everything has gone up, but it is those who can least afford it who are paying the price. Increases in groceries, gas, carbon taxes, housing and rental costs are cascading across communities in Canada, including in my community of Barrie—Innisfil, and it is causing many sleepless nights. Senior Elizabeth recently wrote me, “We now have to pick our food purchases very carefully; even local produce has taken a large jump.” This should not be happening in Canada We need a government that understands that it will be the power of Canadian businesses, the people they employ, the products they produce in every region, in every sector of the economy, so Canadian businesses can compete here at home and around the world, and bring back investor confidence. There is only one party that will secure the future, that will unify Canada and bring back hope, opportunity and prosperity for all Canadians, and that is Canada’s Conservatives.

Madam Speaker, one of the things that Bill C-30 does not address, and it is a wide chasm, is the issue of those who fell through the cracks under previous iterations of some of the benefits. I am speaking specifically about travel advisers and businesses that were started in 2020 that did not have access to many of the benefits that other businesses or other Canadians had. The fact is that the implementation bill neglects to address those issues and causes severe problems for those Canadians who otherwise did not qualify for these types of benefits. Could the member comment on that?

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, who I have great respect for, for his speech today. One of the things that has not come up with Bill C-30 is the fact that it is an omnibus bill and it makes consequential changes to other acts including the Judges Act, the Elections Act and many other changes as well. This is coming from a government that ran in 2015, on the premise and the promise to Canadians that the Liberals were not going to impose omnibus bills. Could the member comment on that and the other pattern of deceit on the part of the government?

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I want to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. I want to begin my comments by saying thank you for the ruling today. I know that the opposition requested you to deliberate over what had happened with respect to the redacted documents, and you came back with a very fair ruling that respects the democratic principles of this institution. You ruled that Parliament does in fact reign supreme and that the committees do have significant powers. It was a very respectful ruling and one that leads us to this evening and this debate. I will remind you of what you said this afternoon as you ruled that the government breached parliamentary privileges by failing to provide the parliamentary body with secret documents that would explain the firing of two scientists at Canada's top infectious disease lab in Winnipeg. You went further, Mr. Speaker, as you know, to say that it is up to the opposition House leader who asked for the ruling to decide on a follow-up motion that might censure the government or refer the matter for more study. That is precisely where we are this evening. The motion that was put forward by the opposition House leader speaks to the fact that the House finds the Public Health Agency of Canada to be in contempt for its failure to obey the order of the House adopted on June 2, 2021, as well as the orders of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations adopted on March 31 and May 10. That is a very important issue here, because there have been three orders, two by committee and one by this body, for those documents to be provided to the parliamentary law clerk and to House administration officials. The order is for the president to: attend the Bar of the House, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on the second sitting day following the adoption of this Order, for the purposes of (a) receiving, on behalf of the Agency, an admonishment delivered by the Speaker; and (b) delivering up the documents ordered by this House on June 2, 2021 to be produced, so that they may be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel under the terms of that Order. For any Canadian who is watching this debate tonight, and I have sat here for most of it, it is rather disturbing to see the government trying to not provide the information that has been ordered by Parliament or by these committees. This is a systemic problem that has been going on for as long as I and many members on the opposition side have been in this Parliament. We see a government that really, despite the words of openness and transparency that the Liberals ran on in 2015, is anything but open and transparent. What the government would prefer more than anything, especially given the time that we are in right now, would be to have an audience rather than an opposition. All parties in opposition in this House have effectively done what they are mandated to do, and that is to hold the government to account. When the facts of this case came out, they were disturbing. I will remind the House again, for the sake of Canadians who are watching, how we got to this point. This is critically important. There were two scientists who were dismissed in January from the Winnipeg lab after their security clearances were revoked in July 2019, and the RCMP was called in to investigate. Xiangguo Qiu, the former head of a key program at the lab, and her biologist husband, Keding Cheng, had been the focus of parliamentary debate for weeks as opposition members became aware and had sought information about this situation. In May, Canada's spy agency had urged the removal of security clearances for the two scientists and an unknown number of Dr. Qiu's students from China relating to the Wuhan facility and other national security matters. For months before the couple were expelled from the lab in 2019, access to information documents show that Dr. Qiu played a key role in shipping two exceptionally virulent viruses, Ebola and Henipah, to China's Wuhan Institute. When this became public, the first response from the government was that it was an issue of privacy. It even sprinkled a little racism in there as the opposition, as a result of these published reports coming out and the fact that the RCMP and Canada's spy agency were involved, tried to get answers about what was going on. Then it went into national security issues. As I said earlier, two committees of Parliament, plus this body itself, ordered the government to provide those unredacted documents to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel so that they could be studied by, as you said, Mr. Speaker, a body that is supreme in this place, yet those documents were not provided in the manner in which they were requested. It is somewhat disturbing that we have seen this systemic pattern, as I said earlier, of a government that has failed in many cases over the last six years to be transparent and accountable to what ultimately reigns supreme in this place, and that is Parliament. It is quite disturbing that we have come to this point. We have seen that this is the government that ran in 2015 on the issue of transparency and accountability. Over the course of the government being in power, we have seen the WE situation. We have seen the Prime Minister charged with ethics violations and found guilty. The list of the government's violations of accountability and transparency is as long as the day. This has caused me as a parliamentarian, my constituents and Canadians in general to be extremely cynical about what the government is doing by not being transparent. I know the government's argument and I have listened to some of the arguments tonight. The argument has been that this information would be provided to the national security committee, but as the Speaker ruled, it is not a committee of Parliament. I think it was important to make the distinction that it serves at the whim of the Prime Minister and the executive branch of the government, which, by virtue of that association, makes it unaccountable to this Parliament. The information that the committee can create and develop is only given to the Prime Minister. That means that Canadians run the risk of not having that information available to them. We do not naively think that national security is not important. We all know that the first and primary role of government, any level of government, is to make sure that its citizens are secure. That is why, in the best interests of our national security, both the committee and Parliament itself in its order made sure that there would be processes in place to protect information. Mr. Speaker, this motion that we are debating tonight as a result of your ruling today is a critical one to indicate to the government that it cannot just run roughshod over parliamentary authority. There have been examples of that in the past. An example that occurred when this pandemic first started was brought up earlier tonight. One of the first pieces of legislation that the government tried to introduce was an attempt to impose unreserved, unconditional tax and spending powers that would have effectively made Parliament irrelevant until January 2022. If it were not for the opposition, all of us, and if it were not for Canadians and journalists pushing back on this power grab by the government, I would hate to think where we would be today. It is not surprising to me and it should not surprise any Canadian when the Prime Minister says that there is something about China's basic dictatorship that he likes and admires. He was not kidding. We have seen this pattern over and over again over the course of the last six years. Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by thanking you for protecting this institution, for being the last line of defence in our democracy and for being there for Canadians.

Madam Speaker, I was very pleased today to hear the Speaker rule that Parliament does reign supreme. Six years ago, the government said that it would be transparent by default. In fact, as the hon. member was speaking, I was reading the mandate letters of many of the ministers, and every single one of those mandate letters speaks to that. However, what we have seen from the government is a pattern and a history of trying to hide things. Could the hon. member speak about this pattern, this history and the impact that has not just on our democracy, but on the transparency and accountability of Parliament.