Parliamentary Speeches

With regard to clothing allowances and expenditures on clothing, for use by the Prime Minister, the Governor General or other ministers, since January 1, 2023, and broken down by year: (a) which individuals have received a clothing allowance and, for each, how much was the allowance; and (b) what are the details of all expenditures by the government on clothing or outerwear which was provided to any of the individuals in (a), including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount spent and the value of the item, (iii) description of the item, (iv) title of the individual?

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of rising for what will be a very busy ethics committee, I suspect, in the future. I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The first report is entitled “Federal Government's Use of Technological Tools Capable of Extracting Personal Data from Mobile Devices and Computers”, and the second is regarding the report “Oversight of Social Media Platforms: Ensuring Privacy and Safety Online”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these two reports.

Mr. Speaker, my first question to the hon. member is whether I can post his speech on my Facebook page. I would appreciate that. In all seriousness, the bill lacks a lot of things and is susceptible to many things, that is, court challenges as a result of the lack of indigenous consultation within the bill, and other parts as well. I wonder whether the hon. member can speak to the risks as they relate potential court challenges related to the bill.

Madam Speaker, I have to admit that I am tepid in supporting this bill, because I have seen, over the last 10 years, major announcements by this Liberal government, yet nothing gets done. I am old enough to remember, during the recent election campaign, when the Prime Minister made a promise, and he said that interprovincial trade barriers would be removed by Canada Day, yet we are dealing with a bill to deal with the removal of interprovincial trade barriers. I know this hon. member has been here for a long time now. Does she share this same sense of tepidness that I have in terms of this government's ability to actually get things done? Are these just more announcements and more of the same?

Madam Speaker, I love the hon. member's assertion that we need to be bold, we need to be ambitious and we need to be audacious. This is not the time for Canada to be timid. We talked about this during the election campaign because of the threats coming from the United States, but this bill is anything but bold. It is anything but ambitious and audacious. It is a very timid bill because it does not repeal the things that are holding our natural resource sector and our economy at bay: Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the industrial carbon tax and other mechanisms that need to be repealed for us to be bold. I wonder if the hon. member can comment a little more about that.

Madam Speaker, if we listen to the hon. member speak about this bill, we could get the sense that there is universal acceptance of this bill, but, quite frankly, there is not. In fact, we heard a Liberal member of Parliament today talk about the concerns he has: the lack of consultation and the fact that this bill would trample on rights, including indigenous rights. In the little time the committee will have to deal with this, if the committee comes back with substantive changes to the bill that improve it and address many of the concerns that we are hearing from across the country with respect to this bill, would the government accept those changes, yes or no?

Madam Speaker, does my colleague agree with me that, with what we saw today at the G7, “pucker up” has replaced “elbows up”? Throughout the campaign, the Prime Minister incited fear among many Canadians, and I assume many Quebeckers, that the greatest threat that existed was the United States. I would suggest the greatest threat we have seen has existed within this country over the last 10 years because of the economic malaise and because of many of the regulatory and legislative policies the government has imposed. Would the member not agree with me that this incitement of fear has actually gone from Trump derangement syndrome on the part of the government to Trump appeasement syndrome?

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first time rising in this place for a speech on a particular subject, I would like to thank the people of Barrie South—Innisfil for electing me for a fourth term. I take their support with great humility and responsibility as well. I certainly appreciate the support. I am going to be splitting my time with the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley. It is almost as if we were watching the movie Men in Black with Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones. There were times when they had a pen-like device; they would actually press a button, and it would flash a white light. Everybody who saw that light forgot what had gone on in the past. It is almost as if the Liberal Party were using that light to make everybody, not just in this place but across the country, forget what has gone on in the past. As we relate to the GC Strategies situation today, a lot has gone on in the past. Words that end in “bility” seem to have been lost in this place, such as “responsibility”, accepting responsibility. "Accountability” is another word that has been lost in this place. Certainly ability has been lost in this place as well as among the Liberal government. In the private sector, the people responsible for the situation would be fired. They would be publicly shamed and never hired within industry again. That is how egregious the GC Strategies situation has become. Again, the Liberals have avoided all accountability and all responsibility for actions by labelling themselves as a new government, when in reality, not only are the ministers responsible for the failure still around, but many of them have been promoted into different positions. During the campaign, I would go around talking to people. We would talk about the Liberals and the history of the last 10 years. I would say to them that even if new wax is put on a car, it is still a 10-year-old car. That is where the Liberal government was. It still has dents and engine problems. It has lots of problems, and a new wax was not going to change anything. The government is not a new government. We can shift people around. We can change titles and pretend that it is not the same Liberal government that has been driving our country into the ground over the last 10 years, but it is. This would not be tolerated in the private sector, so why are we tolerating it in this place? All we are asking is for the government to take accountability, support the motion to claw back the fraudulent spending and ensure that Canadians, hard-working taxpayers, are able to get their money back. Is that a hard ask? It is not, especially in a situation as egregious as this. Let us go back and look at what happened with GC Strategies, which is, again, reaffirmed in the Auditor General's report from the other day. I happened to be in the lock-up. I listened to the Auditor General. Having gone through all of this in the previous Parliament, I was shocked once again by just how deep the rot goes and how systemic a problem this is within the current government. There are no signs that it is going to change. In 82% of the contracts that were received, the government failed to verify that the fees paid did not exceed market rates. This deliberately allowed room for the government to overpay for contracts and waste taxpayer dollars. The government chose, 82% of the time, not to verify whether it was overpaying. It was overpaying on these contracts yet still awarded GC Strategies $92.7 million in contracts, with $64.5 million being paid out, and yet there is nothing to show for it. There is nothing to show for the corruption or the fraud that occurred. The project was supposed to cost only $80,000, and yet it ballooned to $64.5 million, 80,000% over budget. Even the Auditor General says that she does not know what the true cost would be because she does not have access to certain record-keeping, etc. This is also not considering the cost to investigate, spend time, and have taxpayer dollars investigate it and uncover the depth of the scam instead of working to improve this country. I think of the thing that really bothered me. As the most recent chair of the ethics committee, where we were studying foreign interference, the impact it was having on our country and the fact that many parts of our institutions and some political parties as well had been infiltrated by foreign interference, there were a lot of things that disturbed me. The security lapses that occurred were probably one of the things that really disturbed me throughout the whole saga. A sample of the contracts, and this was reaffirmed again the other day by the Auditor General, showed that 33 out of the 35 contracts required security clearance, with 50% of those contracts not able to show that all contract resources, including the subcontractors, had the appropriate security clearance prior to collecting the award. Obviously, we have heard about the implications of foreign interference and the fact that there are regimes that are trying to infiltrate and are successfully infiltrating our institutions, such as Parliament and other areas. The government could not even guarantee that the security clearances were not having an impact on what was going on, and in knowing the damaging facts and the evidence that would come in light of the Auditor General's report, the Liberals were quick to issue a seven-year ban on government contracts to GC Strategies. It was not lost on me and should not be lost on members that this seven-year ban happened on the Friday before the Auditor General's scathing report came out on Tuesday morning. Whether that speaks to the government's having a heads-up and trying to get ahead of the story is certainly in question, but the ban was not issued out of the goodness of its heart but rather to overcompensate for its prior lack of accountability, responsibility, variability and traceability in their work on and with GC Strategies. There are those words with “bility” again. Why not, and this is a fair question, issue a lifetime ban on the company? Why not issue a specific ban on Kristian Firth and Darren Anthony to ensure that the people involved do not reincorporate under a different name and continue with their grift on the government? They can, in effect, change the name, start another company, and even after these seven years, or perhaps within it, they can come back to the government and start issuing contracts again. This sets a tone. Obviously, the GC Strategies scandal has set the standard and tolerance for this kind of behaviour, signalling that the government can be taken advantage of and exploited at the expense of the taxpayer. It has completely undermined Canadians' ability to place their trust in their own government, old government or new government, and the government certainly needs to make an example out of GC strategies, signalling a new message that this level of fraud and incompetence will not be tolerated. My concern going forward, quite frankly, and I spoke about this in August 2022, is what we just saw with the main estimates, where we are seeing $26 billion in additional increases for contractor costs. My concern is that the kleptocracy is going to continue within the current government. If someone is a friend, a family member or a lobbyist who is connected with the government, they are going to benefit to a great degree, and without mechanisms of accountability and transparency, and our ability to provide oversight as an official opposition and as all opposition members in this place, it is going to be awfully difficult for us to keep track not only of where the $26 billion is going to go but also what has happened in the past, the history of the past. As we have seen with GC Strategies, the government has shown itself not to be transparent and not to be accountable at times when it needs to be. This is not a new government; this is an old government with new wax on the car.

Mr. Speaker, it is really rich when a member of the old government, purporting to be the new government, stands up and does not accept responsibility or accountability for what went on in the past. The Liberals want us to forget about the past. They want us to forget about all the corruption, all the cronyism and all the kleptocracy that went on, where government insiders and well-connected friends and families benefited as a result of the Liberals' being in power, while the people they governed suffered. They continue to suffer. People need the money back. They want the money back. There has to be accountability in the government, and that is what we are asking for with the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I already said that in my speech. The government is the same. Nothing has changed but the leader. It is like the example I gave of an old car: Even with a coat of wax, an old car is still an old car. If the government is truly willing to change, it will vote in support of this motion. It would not vote for covering up all of its indiscretions in the past. This is a systemic problem within the government that needs to be exposed. We are exposing it. The money needs to be paid back, and it needs to be paid back now.

Mr. Speaker, not one has accepted responsibility for what went on with GC Strategies. Not one minister has accepted any of the responsibility for all the scandals, all of the corruption and all of the cronyism that has gone on over the last 10 years. In fact, as I said in my speech, several have been promoted into new positions. It is unacceptable that Canadians would accept this. Canadians did accept it, and I understand some of the reasons they did. This is important to understand: Much of this stuff was happening long before Donald Trump became the President of the United States, and it will continue under the current government. We are going to see, as I said earlier, that the kleptocracy continues, where well-connected insiders, cronies, friends and families are going to benefit as a result of the government's continuing on. There is $26 billion in consultants is in the main estimates. Where do people think the money is going to go? It is going to keeping the kleptocracy alive, and it has got to stop.

Mr. Speaker, I always find it comical, if not sad, when the Liberals are questioning data that comes from Statistics Canada or Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, like they did with my hon. colleague. I do want to talk about the $800 tax decrease that was announced. I want to counter that by saying that the average food costs are going to go up, per family, this year by $800. The average family in the country is going to spend $17,000 of its after-tax dollars on food. Would the hon. member not agree that food insecurity is a major threat to many Canadian families, single moms and seniors?

Mr. Speaker, “food prices up” has replaced “elbows up” at grocery stores lately as food inflation has tripled in the past two months. It is so bad now that even sale items are too expensive for Canadian families, and we are lucky if we walk out of a grocery store with two bags for less than $80. Inflationary spending must be reversed so Canadians can afford to put food on the table. Will the Liberals present a budget to show that they are at least trying to bring food prices down?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that he should be judged by the prices at the grocery store, so let us do that. Food inflation has tripled in the past two months, and Canadian families will pay $800 more on food this year than last year, so there goes their tax cut. That is about $17,000 on food alone this year. Families, single moms and seniors are at a breaking point, and this cannot go on. Do the Liberals not see what their inflationary spending is doing to families, or do they just not care? Why will the Prime Minister not table a budget and show the true cost of his inflationary deficits and debts?

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, today we are dealing with an opposition motion that speaks specifically to the heart of affordability. There are many Canadian families, single moms and seniors who cannot afford groceries. We have actually seen inflation on grocery prices increase by three times in the last couple months; by comparison, in the United States they have dropped by 2%. Would the hon. member not agree with me that these inflationary causes are a direct result of policy-driven initiatives by his own government?

Mr. Speaker, it will have been 18 months since this country saw a federal budget. We all recall the fiasco when the fall economic statement was dropped in this Parliament. Would the hon. member not agree that this is the time to have a budget so that Canadians can openly and transparently see what the numbers are? Of course, in the fall, we knew that the Liberals had blown through their fiscal guardrail and the deficit was $60 billion. Does the member share my sentiment, perhaps a cynic might, that they are actually trying to cook the books and hide the numbers from Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, it has been 18 months since we had a budget. Just a couple of weeks ago, Parliament voted, with a majority, for the government to present a budget. We have seen, over the last 10 years, a decline in our democracy, which happened long before Donald Trump became President of the United States. Would the hon. member not agree with me that this constitutes a contempt of Parliament in a way that we have seen a pattern of from the government?

Mr. Speaker, a lot of the things that the hon. member was relaying are things that I heard throughout the campaign, particularly from those who grew up in eastern European countries, where they saw the rise of socialism, the incremental loss of rights and freedoms, media propaganda, Internet controls, what we can see and say online, and then, eventually, the confiscation of firearms from law-abiding people. What I heard in my riding sounds very similar to the arguments that he heard in his riding. I am just wondering if he could comment a little bit more on that.

Mr. Speaker, for seven months, parliamentary committees have sat idle while, according to the Prime Minister, the country is facing an existential threat. It appears that he is in no rush to have them constituted. The committees are an important function of our democracy. Committees are where bills are scrutinized; where witnesses tell MPs about the impacts these bills and threats are having on their businesses, their lives and their communities; and where the government is held to account. We do not have a budget, and without committees, there will be no oversight or accountability. Maybe that is what the Prime Minister wants. Will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring that committees are in place before his summer vacation starts?

Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the hon. member was at one point the President of the Treasury Board, who is responsible for overall government spending and fiscal accountability. One of the areas of concern that I have and many of my colleagues and Canadians have is that the Prime Minister has announced he is not going to have a budget until the fall. This is in the backdrop of him saying during the election campaign that “a plan beats no plan”. Would the hon. member not agree, especially given his experience as the President of the Treasury Board, that this is the case and that Canadians should be seeing a budget so they know where the money is going to be spent and where the money is coming from?

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of housing affordability and attainability, I think we can all agree there is a crisis in this country. One area in which we need to address that is obviously in the case of a federal budget. We have not had a federal budget in the last 18 months. Members will recall the fiasco that went on with the fall economic statement being tabled by the then House leader, not even by the then finance minister, because she had resigned that day. Does the hon. member agree that in the absence of a federal budget, it is difficult for us as parliamentarians to understand not just how the government is going to spend its money but also where that money is going to come from?

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of a budget, the main estimates came out last week, and they said there would be a 37% increase, to $26 billion a year. That will cost the average family about $1,400 in consultant fees. This is on top of the fact that the bureaucracy has grown almost 50% under the government. Does the hon. member not think there is a disconnect there, that we basically have a tax cut that is going to reduce the amount of taxes by the cost of a cup of coffee a week, yet on the back end of that, it is going to cost each Canadian family $1,400 a year for new consultants? Is that not a disconnect in her view?

Mr. Speaker, frankly, it pains me to see, in what is supposed to be a functioning democracy, a government that is in complete and utter collapse today. It is no secret that many in the House have lost confidence in the government. In fact, Canadians have lost confidence in the government. The only ones who seem to have not lost confidence in the government are its NDP coalition partners. The leader of the NDP holding off to get his pension is probably one of the most contemptible things I have seen in this country in a long time. I want the hon. member's comments on the fact that we need an election now. We need to return to some sense of normalcy, decency and morality in this country, which a common-sense Conservative government could do.

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of Christmas, I hope the hon. member will join me in wishing the Liberal Party well tomorrow night at its Christmas party, which is being held somewhere close to the Hill. I wish the Liberals all the best for tomorrow night's Christmas party. We have a government that is literally collapsing in front of us right now. The only confidence that is being shown in the government is by the NDP. I recall when the NDP-Liberal costly, comfy coalition was conceived in 2022. I spoke, at the time, about the fact that the NDP was heading to an abyss of irrelevance and that it was actually playing right into the Prime Minister's hands. Given the fact that the New Democrats have supported the current Liberal government more than 25 times in votes of confidence as it relates to scrapping and axing the carbon tax, the fact that NDP members have continued to show their confidence in the government, even after the leader of the NDP ripped up the coalition agreement with much fanfare, and the fact that the NDP leader is here in order to secure his pension, is it not time that the NDP members join not just with Canadians but also with a majority of Canadians and show no confidence in the current Liberal government?

Mr. Speaker, we are really in a unique position today. As parliamentarians, we have a front row seat to what many Canadians are seeing today as a government that is spiralling out of control, that is literally collapsing before us at a very important time in our nation's history. The NDP has an opportunity here to make the right decision for once, and not support the government, not show any confidence in the government. Later today, the fall economic statement is going to be presented, we think. We are not so sure anymore, but if it is, I am sure there are mechanisms in which the leadership side of the government, the House leader or others, could put it to a vote quickly. We could have a vote tonight or tomorrow. As we know, there are 70% of Canadians or more who do not have confidence in the government. However, I think it would show that this House has no confidence in the government, save the NDP. Would the hon. member agree with me that we could, if we wanted to, put the fall economic statement to a vote immediately, to show whether this House has confidence in the government? I suspect that not to be the case, which would then force an election where we can return to some normalcy, some decency and some morality in this country led by a common-sense Conservative government.

Mr. Speaker, where did that huff and puff come from? Oh, it was obviously from a New England fan. I know that the hon. member represents a border community, and the border has become an issue since President-elect Trump's election. There are issues surrounding drugs and immigration. It is an important part of the member's riding because of the safety and security of the border, but tourism is also a big part. I wonder whether the hon. member can comment on the fact that the government is literally collapsing before our eyes and on how important it is that we call on the NDP to forget about the NDP leader's pension and to call no confidence in the government so we can have a government that can deal with the many crises facing our nation and show some strong leadership in a Canada first approach.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like you to consider this as a matter of contempt of Parliament. The finance minister resigned this morning at 8 a.m. The economic statement was to be delivered at 4 p.m. this afternoon. The Prime Minister had ample opportunity to appoint another finance minister and deputy prime minister and have them sworn in to issue the fall economic statement. That to me, and I hope you agree, is a point of contempt. The government knew this motion was in place and that it was agreed to by all parties. It failed this Parliament and therefore failed Canadians, and I believe it is in contempt.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak about the veterans affairs committee report that is before us. The reality is that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has great power, and literally with one fell swoop of a pen she could make this happen if she wanted to. The situation has been going on far too long. The committee report, as I said, was somewhat vague in its recommendations. There was not unanimous support, because there was a dissenting report by the NDP that called for the change to happen as soon as possible; however, I think there was agreement. A lot of witnesses came forward and spoke to this particular issue. In October 2016 I was given the honour by then leader Rona Ambrose to be the critic for veterans affairs. Admittedly, it was a very difficult time, after the 2015 election, to be the critic for veterans affairs. I had a tremendous amount of advice given to me by the former Conservative minister of veterans affairs, Erin O'Toole, on what I needed to do as the new critic at the time. I immediately embarked on a cross-Canada tour to meet with veterans, their families, stakeholders and advocates. I was very grateful to do that with the member for Yorkton—Melville, with whom I will be splitting my time. She is a great advocate for veterans and their families. As I went across the country, obviously coming out of the 2015 election, as difficult as that period was, there were a lot of questions posed to me. I did not back away from any of them at all; I faced them head on. I talked to veterans and their families right across the country and explained to them the challenges that had come out of and in advance of the 2015 election. Many of the people I spoke to were grateful for the types of programs the former Conservative government had put in, but there were some issues. I faced those issues head-on. The one thing that veterans appreciate more than anything else is telling them the truth. Face their questions head on, admit when mistakes were made and do not necessarily take credit for everything; show some humility. Those are some of the things I tried to do. I have listened to much of the debate this morning, and the blame game is being used in this place. I will say that this is a very toxic place right now; everybody is looking for political positioning. The NDP and the Liberals are 20 to 25 points behind in the polls, so they are looking to attack the Conservatives in any way they can. That is part of it, and I get it. However, when it comes to veterans and their families, there should be no attacks or partisan games. Veterans and their families can smell it from a mile away. They know when they are being used as political pawns by political parties, and in much of the debate I have heard today, that is happening. Frankly, veterans and their families do not give a flying you-know-what about what people say; it is what they do that matters. There were difficult times; I admit that now as I did when I was critic for veterans affairs, but the one thing I was with veterans was honest. If there was something that we could do, we did it; if there was something that we could not do, I would tell them why. It was in that spirit that in 2017, after travelling the country and talking to veterans, their families, stakeholders and others, I proposed my private member's bill, Bill C-378, which would have established a military covenant, an obligation between the Crown and our veterans. I used the example of Great Britain at the time because it was the only Commonwealth country, and the only country in the world in fact, that had established a military covenant. The covenant would have been based on respect and would have obligated not just the government of the day but also governments of the future to prioritize the needs of veterans and their families. There were many cases I heard about where benefits were not being applied in a fair amount of time, so I was hoping that, by establishing that obligation on the minister, on the government and on future governments, including our government, veterans would have been respected. The bill dealt with three basic principles; the minister would have to have taken into account, in every act that they undertook, the three principles. The first is that veterans, as well as their families, survivors in the context of what we are talking about today in the so-called gold digger clause, would have been taken into account and been treated with dignity, respect and fairness. The second principle is that veterans and their duties are unique among Canadians, which I think we can all recognize. There is an obligation to care for veterans because of the sacrifices made by them, and that obligation extends as well to the experience of their families. The third core principle in the military covenant that I looked to establish through a private member's bill was that the care, treatment and transition of Canadian Armed Forces in and to civilian life would be dealt with in a timely manner. I have sat on committees and I have been through many Veterans Affairs reports, including the ones involving transition. I think the number, and maybe the member for Yorkton—Melville can correct me, is that there have been about 13 or 14 reports on military members' transitioning into civilian life, but many of the problems are still a problem. Oftentimes at committees, when witnesses some and make recommendations to the government, the government responds but the reality is that, in many circumstances, nothing gets done. We wonder why veterans and their families are frustrated when consecutive governments do not fulfill their obligation to those veterans. Unfortunately my private member's bill, Bill C-378, which would have established the military covenant, was defeated in 2017. I was extremely disappointed by the fact that we were not able to fulfill that obligation to veterans and their families. I will remind members again that service extends beyond the battlefield; it is not just about the men and women who are on the front lines protecting our nation, defending peace and security around the world and the rule of law, human rights and human dignities. The service of the families back home, who worry and who are there to support their family while their military member is deployed, in my opinion, is equal to or greater than the member's service and sacrifice itself. With respect to the clause in question, the report suggested that there were roughly 9,000 people who would be affected by it. It is interesting, because there was a PBO report in 2022 that showed five-year costs would be over $1.3 billion over those five years. The Canada pension plan 2019-2020 annual report indicated that the removal of the clause would be less than a 2% change, or less than $1 billion on an annual basis, of $38.9 billion in payouts. Let us put that in context in terms of what this nation is spending as far as foreign aid is concerned. Veterans and their families are not unlike anybody else; they see the amount of money that is going towards supporting other nations. They see the amount of waste. They see the amount of money, for example, in the SDTC scandal of $400 million. They are able to calculate all the numbers and figure it out, and they ask, “Why are we not looking after ourselves? Why are we not looking after, as a matter of priority, our veterans and their families?” when they see announcements of billions and billions of dollars going towards what they would consider, because they have told me this, ideological pet projects. I believe it is incumbent upon us to look after our veterans, not just by the words that we say but also by the actions that we take. Bill C-378 would have established the military covenant and provided respect and dignity to our veterans. I stand by everything I have done as veterans affairs critic, and I will stand by veterans now and forever.

Mr. Speaker, I will note that, in the committee's report, many of the recommendations were vague. I would classify the government's response to it as more vague. There is a clause that dates back to early military history when, in fact, perhaps there was some abuse; however, any society evolves, as ours has here in Canada. I believe that there is a fundamental right of people who marry military members to be granted this type of coverage as a result not only of the member's service but also of the caregiving. I think the member agrees with that, but that was my comment.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did not make those cuts. I think I acknowledged the difficulties coming out of the 2015 election that I had to face as critic for veterans affairs. I had to answer many of the questions that were given to me, which I did it honestly and forthrightly, not in a manner that would allow veterans to be told otherwise. It is the only way I can say it. Veterans can smell it from a mile away. We have to be honest with them. We have to tell them why. They may not agree, and in many cases they do not. However, if we can do something, we tell them that we can do it, and if we cannot do something, we tell them why. Veterans and their families are tired of being used as political pawns. They want to see action on not just the issue before us but on many other issues as well.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have an answer for that. If I did, I would tell the member. What I can say now, and as I started my speech with, is that with one fell swoop of a pen, the Minister of Veterans Affairs can do anything she wants. Future ministers, with that same pen, can make amends and correct the wrongs of the past. That can be done. The minister has that power; I do not have that power as an individual. However, I can say that I do not disagree with the member on the matter.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader continues to hold the country hostage, playing political hokey-pokey to secure his pension by February. First, he put himself in a coalition agreement with the Liberals, and then he took himself out, ripping up the agreement while shaking his fist all about. Now he has put himself back in, taping the agreement together and turning himself around after saying he would vote no confidence. What deal did the Prime Minister make with the leader of the NDP to secure his vote of confidence, and how much will it cost Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, words matter. The leader of the NDP said he ripped up his supply and confidence agreement with the Liberals, saying the Liberals are “too weak, too selfish and too beholden to corporate interests to fight for people”. Speaking to poor workers, before the Liberals violated their right to strike, he said, “If there is any vote in Parliament that in any way impacts your rights...I can tell you right now, we'll vote no. Whether that vote is a confidence vote or not”. What deal did the Prime Minister make with the leader of the NDP to secure his vote of confidence, and how much will it cost Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Oversight of Social Media Platforms: Ensuring Privacy and Safety Online”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the witnesses, the analysts, the clerk and everybody involved in the presentation of this report.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition leader offered the finance minister two hours to present the fall economic statement on Monday. The minister's response was to reject the offer to provide an update that would take no more than a minute. It is absurd that Canadians are in the dark about how dire the fiscal situation is in this country. The NDP-Liberal costly coalition has created inflationary deficits that are hurting Canadians at the grocery store, at the gas pump and in their monthly heating bills. Canadians are trying to manage household budgets while the government's inflationary deficits are costing every Canadian, as the deficits blow up uncontrollably. Canadians were promised a $40-billion deficit cap in the spring budget. What is the real deficit number and why will the finance minister not take up the offer by the opposition leader to tell Canadians the truth in the people's House? By hiding the truth, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are proving once again that they cannot be redeemed at this point and must be replaced by a common-sense Conservative government that will fix the budget. A carbon tax election cannot come soon enough.

With regard to Microsoft licenses paid for by the government, in total and broken down by department or agency: (a) how much was spent on Microsoft licenses in the last fiscal year; (b) how many licenses does the government pay for and how many users are able to access Microsoft products through those licenses; (c) how many licenses are currently unused; and (d) how many licenses are not currently assigned to an employee or full-time equivalent?

With regard to Adobe licenses paid for by the government, in total and broken down by department or agency: (a) how much was spent on Adobe licenses in the last fiscal year; (b) how many licenses does the government pay for and how many users are able to access Adobe products through those licenses; (c) how many licenses are currently unused; and (d) how many licenses are not currently assigned to an employee or full-time equivalent?

Mr. Speaker, we know that a government is circling the bowl when it throws up all of these distractions. We are talking about a $400-million scandal here, which 183 connected Liberal insiders benefited from as a result without any oversight for conflicts of interest. The very thing the Liberals said they came to Ottawa to do, which is to be transparent and accountable, they are now anything but. We are hearing this morning further distractions, rather than them being accountable and transparent to Canadians. I wonder if the member can comment on this pattern of distraction, “Oh, look, a squirrel”, which is the government's way of distracting. I will remind members as well that the Chinese Communist regime's interference in elections in this country is well documented on the side of the Liberal Party. That is another distraction it is trying to create.

Madam Speaker, watching the debate and watching the Liberals this morning, I cannot help but feel that this is a bit of a magician's act: “Oh look, a squirrel.” The Liberals are trying to distract from a lot of things. This includes a real whopper this morning, which plays into the SDTC scandal. The Auditor General found that Accenture received $313 million, or 92% of a total of $342 million, in contracts awarded. This happened even though Accenture performed much of the work in Brazil instead of Canada, as the government has claimed. Does the hon. member agree that it is time to rid this country of the current government through a carbon tax election and get back to some normalcy and decency?

Mr. Speaker, it was the shortest speech in the history of the Westminster parliamentary system, I would argue, but we will have to do some research on that. I thank you for adding the extra second to allow me 20 minutes to speak about the important issue before us. If someone were writing a Hollywood script, they could not write a better script than this. It has everything, and I am going to touch on that in a few minutes. It has intrigue, fraud, crime and a criminal investigation. All of it would make for a blockbuster Hollywood movie, yet here we are in the House of Commons playing this one out because of a minister who was using his position to further himself and his business with business partners who are suspect at best. I would like to revisit how we got here. As you know, in your ruling on the question of privilege that was brought forward by the committee, you agreed that privilege had been breached. An appropriate motion was moved at that time, effectively calling Mr. Anderson, the former minister's business partner, to the bar to answer the questions that he refused to answer at committee. In the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, I was obligated by the committee, as its chair, to present the report to Parliament. It had to do with the compliance of a minister with the Conflict of Interest Act. It was really, in essence, about failure to respond to an order of the committee. Of course, through the SDTC scandal and the fact that Parliament has been seized with that privilege motion as well, we understand that the supremacy of Parliament is paramount. When we at committee, or members, ask for documents to be received, the expectation is that those documents will be received, because, again, the supremacy of Parliament is paramount. We have the right to compel documents when we feel that they are not being provided to us. To revisit this, I will quote from a report I wrote to Parliament: On Tuesday, May 7, 2024, the committee agreed, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), to undertake a study of the compliance of a minister with the Conflict of Interest Act. In the course of this study, on Thursday, June 6, 2024, the committee adopted the following motion: “That, in light of media reports, [the minister]’s testimony at this committee, and the Ethics Commissioner’s confirmation that he is considering opening another investigation into [the minister]’s actions, the committee call on the following witnesses to appear before the committee and testify for one hour: That includes Stephen Anderson, the character in question, and Kirsten Poon, who was a partner with Global Health Imports. The report continues: And that the committee request that Stephen Anderson and [the minister] produce for the committee all of their phone records, text messages, iMessages, and all instant messages and call logs from all applications from September 8, 2022, within seven days of this motion being adopted.” The date of September 8 is critical in the context of the information that the committee was seeking in relation to the minister's actions in conducting business that he was not allowed to conduct. The report goes on to state, “Mr. Anderson mentioned that some of the information requested was personal in nature”, which is fair enough, and he “requested that this information be guaranteed to be kept confidential and that, in the absence of a guaranteed confidentiality, he would not submit some of the documents. In the end, he did not submit any documents”, despite the fact that, through an order, the committee had compelled him to do so. It continues: Pursuant to the same motion, the committee invited Stephen Anderson to appear before it. During his appearance on Wednesday, July 17, 2024, Stephen Anderson repeatedly said that the “Randy” referred to in many text messages was an auto-correct.... Somehow there was a mistake made, and on more than nine occasions by his count, the “Randy” in question in the text messages was, in fact, an autocorrect. There were also some suggestions that it could have been somebody named Randeep, but there were only three directors of the company, and two principals, Mr. Anderson and someone named Randy, so it is highly improbable that there was a Randeep involved. However, “Mr. Anderson”, and this is important, “repeatedly refused to answer members asking for the name of the individual referred to in the text messages.” He said that he would consider providing that information on a confidential basis if the committee were to move in camera. Fortunately, despite the obstructionist efforts of the Liberal members of the committee, the committee, in its wisdom, decided not to go in camera, and it asked Mr. Anderson to provide the name referenced by “Randy”. Further, the committee noted the Speaker's ruling that the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd edition, 2017, at pages 1078 to 1079, reads, “Witnesses must answer all questions which the committee puts to them”. It goes on, but I am not going to read it as it is in the manual, but the committee also noted that at page 1081, the following is noted in relation to a witness: “Refusal to answer questions or failure to reply truthfully may give rise to a charge of contempt of the House, whether the witness has been sworn in or not.” This is really the point we are at right now. The report continues: As a result, and in response to Mr. Anderson’s refusal to provide the name of the individual referred to during the meeting and other documentation requested, the committee adopted the following motion: “That, the committee order Stephen Anderson to produce all of the previously requested documents, in addition to the name referenced in today's testimony, and if those documents are not received by Friday, July 19 at 12:00 p.m., the Chair prepare a report to the House outlining the questions that Stephen Anderson refused to answer in writing and during testimony.” That is the report I am reading from. It goes on: Mr. Anderson provided documentation to the committee; however, much of the information requested by the motion was not included. More specifically, the name of the individual he was referring to during his testimony was also not provided to the committee. Pursuant to the Order adopted by the committee, the committee having not received the documents requested from the witness, and, most significantly, the name referenced during the committee meeting of Wednesday, July 17, 2024, continuing to be withheld, your committee [as I reported] feels it is their duty to place these matters before the House at this time so that the House may take such measures as it deems appropriate. Well, Mr. Speaker, as you have indicated, the measures are to have Mr. Anderson, in a humiliating fashion, come before the bar of the House to answer the questions that were posed by the committee members. Once we dispose of the motion and vote on it, despite, as I said, many obstructionist attempts by Liberal members of the committee to not get to this point, we are at the point where Mr. Anderson will be called before the bar to provide answers to the questions that have been demanded of him, more specifically who the other Randy is. That is what we need to get to the bottom of. As I said earlier, one could not write a Hollywood script better than this. It has it all, including the chance meeting of the former minister and Mr. Anderson on a flight coming out of Montreal, striking up a conversation about how it would be great if they got into business together. I bet that the former minister sure regrets that decision at this point, given the character he was aligning himself with. The company was set up after the chance meeting, and the connections are critical because the former minister was not in government at the time. He had been so previously, and he had gained a tremendous number of connections within government that could elevate and escalate the business into dealings that it would not otherwise have had. Certainly over the course of the last nine years, the extent of insiders, the connected cronies who have benefited as a results of their connections to the Liberal Party, is well documented. Not the least of the issues are the SDTC scandal and Frank Baylis. The list of the insiders connected to the Liberal Party who have benefited as a result of that connection is as long as the day. There was an opportunity for pandemic profiteering. We had gone to the height of a pandemic, and procurement was being done all over the country to try to supply PPE, for example, with contracts that were being sole-sourced. The opportunity was there for pandemic profiteering, a perfect storyline for a Hollywood script. There was fraud, which we have found out about since. Seven lawsuits have been filed against the former minister's company, of which he was a director, seven civil suits for fraud. He was not supplying material that had already been paid for. One of the last straws, but not the only last straw, was the sworn affidavit just filed a couple of weeks ago that names the former minister as the Randy in question in one of those civil lawsuits. That sworn affidavit is certainly an indictment on who was involved. Then there was the famous fire at the company that still to this day remains unsolved. How was the warehouse set on fire that housed many of the products that GHI was storing? There is a cocaine connection. One of the people involved with this company was found to be transporting cocaine on an airplane and shared a mailbox with the company. It is almost laughable. Then there was the cover-up and the extent to which the cover-up went on. I mentioned this briefly in the information that I provided earlier. There were text messages that were not submitted after they were asked for. Those text messages are important because Mr. Anderson was directly communicating with the former minister while he was at a ministerial retreat in British Columbia. There was denial after denial on the part of the former minister and on the part of Mr. Anderson, yet it has been proven through the text messages that they were communicating while the former minister was sitting around the cabinet table. It is more intrigue, as if it were a Hollywood script. I mentioned this earlier, but I think it is worth mentioning again. We saw many Liberal members trying to obstruct the committee's work by filibustering certain motions. The role of the ethics committee as an oversight committee is to get to the bottom of ethical breaches and violations, whether related to the code of conduct or the act itself, and the Liberals were obstructing that in every way. I finally had a sidebar conversation with the vice-chair, and I said to him that if he was willing to stake his political career and capital on defending that guy despite the amount of evidence that has been produced before us, with the text messages, the civil lawsuits and the sworn affidavit, it was not a hill that I would die on, quite frankly. We have seen in recent news that he was let go, but, again, there is more intrigue. There is also the money, almost $110 million in contracts, and the half-million-dollar fraud case going on for not supplying PPE to a company that had already forwarded the money. Of course, we have heard about the indigenous connection too. The company claimed an indigenous connection in order to submit bids for indigenous procurement and contracts. The mighty OGGO has been dealing with that, as have other committees. The former minister embarrassingly had to step down, in large part as a result of the false claim of the indigenous connection. I think the icing on the cake, and the last straw, was the police investigation. Given that the Edmonton police are now involved and engaged in a criminal investigation into this company, I think the Prime Minister had no other choice but to force the former minister's resignation and have him stand down as a result of all of those things. It is a beautiful Hollywood script that would probably be a money-maker if it were to be produced. Of course, if we were to produce a movie like that, we would need a cast and an ensemble. Who would some of those cast members be? Perhaps for Randy, we might look at Stanley Tucci or Jason Alexander from Seinfeld. I saw Stephen Anderson at committee, and I think he thought that he was auditioning for a reality TV show. Honestly, he lacked credibility, and the indifference he showed to our committee in requesting this information was quite something. Who would play him? Maybe it could be Brad Pitt or Charlie Sheen. Who would play the chair of the committee? Who would play me? Well, I think Mike Pence would be a good choice, but I am not sure that the former vice-president of the United States would go for that. I would settle for Tom Cruise, if that were the case. For the Prime Minister, maybe Kevin from The Office would be a good choice. For the other ensemble members, Rosie O'Donnell would be there, along with Gérard Depardieu and my favourite actor, Denzel. Ryan Reynolds would be part of it, and we could get Cher in there, as well as Macaulay Culkin and Jude Law. I suggest that they would perhaps be good choices of actors for the member for St. Albert—Edmonton. Of course, Dog the Bounty Hunter would be himself because the committee has summoned both Mr. Anderson and the other one, Papineau, to the committee. We summoned them the other day, so we are hoping to see them. Maybe Dog the Bounty Hunter can find them because they are nowhere to be found on the radar. Seriously, the minister has been forced to step down as a result of all of the things that I have listed, which would make this a perfect Hollywood script. He said he wants to clear his name, that he is going to take time to clear his name, and he has not. I have not seen him since. I suspect that he is probably out there. I would like to give the former minister an opportunity to clear his name. Once this motion gets approved, Mr. Anderson will be appearing before the bar. The motion indicates how many members on each side would be able to ask Mr. Anderson questions. If the former minister, the member for Edmonton Centre, truly wants to clear his name, I cannot think of a better way to do that than in this place, facing his accuser. That would be a perfect opportunity. He should get out of the fetal position, lick his wounds, come in here and face his accuser. I want to give the member for Edmonton Centre that opportunity. Therefore, I move: That the amendment be amended, in subparagraph (f)(i), by adding the following: “followed by an additional 10 minutes which shall be allocated to the Member for Edmonton Centre,”. That would give him an opportunity to face his accuser in this place, at the bar, in an attempt to clear his name. That would make for an interesting ending to this movie.