Damien Kurek

[Privilege, October 24th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister of this country could release the names so that Canadians could know and make that decision for themselves. Instead of doing what is in the best interests of national security and democracy, the Prime Minister has decided that he will prioritize his own political self-interest.

I would say specifically to the member, who highlighted a significant issue, that I am curious about what his constituents think of the parliamentary secretary denying the unanimous consent motion that was put forward on Monday. It was about the standing up of a special committee to investigate the very issue that he claims is so important. It was not a Conservative who denied that, a member of the Bloc or a member of the NDP. It was not an independent member. It was the parliamentary secretary, I believe, to the Prime Minister or to the House leader. Members will have to forgive me; I do not recall. He is up so often that it is easy to forget.

The fact is that a senior Liberal in his own party denied a unanimous consent motion to stand up a committee that would have gotten the answers he just communicated are so important. Has the member heard that from constituents?

[Privilege, October 24th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting; members of the Liberal Party have taken great pains to politicize something that the Prime Minister initially said he did not want to politicize. That was the issue surrounding foreign interference, secrecy and getting top secret security clearance. At the Hogue inquiry, the Prime Minister even admitted to getting too political. I believe that was how he referred to it when he took the stand.

My colleague from King—Vaughan made a very interesting point. The Prime Minister does not actually have security clearance. It is interesting because many Liberals may not realize that. He is given access to top secret information because he is the leader of government. That is a constitutional tradition that our Parliament holds.

When it comes to the gag order, there are many different mechanisms; yesterday, my colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, expanded very specifically on what some of those measures are. If the Prime Minister were truly earnest about wanting to do what is best for Canadians, he would release the names. There are a number of mechanisms by which he could do so, but he refuses. He would rather play politics. He is playing with the security of Canadians and the interference of elections. That is shameful, and it puts our democracy at risk.

[Privilege, October 24th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed working with that member, despite our political differences. What I find very interesting is that at any point in time, the government could put an end to this debate, with the support of one of the opposition parties, and it will not be the Conservatives, as we have made very clear. It could invoke closure on the debate. Thus far, that has not happened. It is, I believe, such an important issue that we need to continue to bring it to light and give the Liberals the opportunity to simply do the right thing: release the documents.

When it comes to those who are engaging in debate on the subject, it is certainly not only Conservatives. Members of every political party are asking questions, providing commentary and even, in some cases, giving speeches. It is incorrect to suggest it is only Conservatives who are holding this up. I enjoyed the opportunity this morning to have a very important discussion on safe sport, in addition to the debate here before us, so it is not like we are not also talking about other important issues facing Canadians.

[Privilege, October 24th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, here we go again. We have a member of the Liberal Party who is somehow suggesting Parliament should not be doing its job. Here are the facts. At any point in time, a majority of the House could in fact shut down this debate, but it has not, because there is, I think, an agreement among a majority of members that the release of these documents is that important to this institution and its ability to function properly.

I was flipping through and could not find the letter right in front of me, but the RCMP itself says it has some of the documents but it does not have all of them.

The fact that the government is unwilling to be transparent and forthright with that information, I would suggest, speaks to a culture of corruption, and it looks like there is a cover-up before us.

Conservatives are not saying we want to conduct the investigation. We simply want to ensure the RCMP has everything it needs to conduct its investigation. It seems to me this is just common sense. What are the Liberals hiding?

[Privilege, October 24th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand here representing the good people of Battle River—Crowfoot and talk about issues that are so important to them, especially when it comes to the appropriate use of tax dollars, which is at the crux of what the House has been seized with for, I believe, 14 days.

As I referenced yesterday, just prior to the House adjourning for the day, it is not just about some documents or a stack of paper. Rather, the privilege debate taking place in the House is about the fundamental basis of our democratic system: the ability of Parliament and those elected by the people of this country to fulfill their constitutional duty in ensuring that, in this case, there is accountability. Ultimately, it is about ensuring that this place, the people's House of Commons, is, remains and continues to be the supreme law-making authority of the land, and that Parliament has what is often referred to by the technical term “unfettered access” to any document in the country. That includes documents in relation to government spending.

Now, the government has kind of flip-flopped. Each day the Liberals seem to have a different tack on how they want to attack Conservatives for simply asking for accountability. What is very interesting is this whole debate could be avoided. It is quite simple. It could easily be avoided by the government simply releasing the documents. This debate could come to a close if the government was willing to take the step of being transparent.

Thus far, the government is unwilling to do so. Does that mean there is incriminating information in the documents? Well, it could. We do not know because we do not have the documents. Could that mean criminality would be exposed in those documents? Well, it could, but we do not know. It certainly raises the question.

I have heard from so many Canadians, and not just constituents. What is interesting is, as this debate has raged on, I have increasingly heard from folks from across the country, including some who live in Liberal ridings. At least, they are Liberal ridings today; we are not sure that will be the case after the next election. They are asking why the government would waste so much energy in a cover-up. The Liberals claim they have nothing to hide. If that is in fact the case, and this is what people are sharing with me, then they should be more forthcoming.

I would invite members of the governing party, Liberal backbenchers who have the constitutional obligation to represent the people who sent them here, to end the cover-up and release the documents. It is truly simple and straightforward, yet the Liberals refuse at every turn.

What is distressing to so many Canadians is that over the last nine years, there has been an erosion of trust in the very foundation of our democratic infrastructure in this country. We have seen it time and time again. I talked yesterday about the normalization of constitutional crises, and how one would outline, nine years ago, what the Liberal government would perpetuate in terms of normalcy in how they treat the institutions of Parliament and of government, and how they would treat Canadians.

The fact is that the Liberals, under the modern Emergencies Act, are the first government since the Prime Minister's father invoked it in the 1970s to suspend charter rights. Can members believe the current Prime Minister suspended the charter rights of Canadians? It is astounding that the Liberal government, with such disregard, is so quick to trample on the rights and freedoms of Canadians. Time and time again, we saw it.

I mentioned briefly yesterday, as my time was coming to a close before the House adjourned, that it was the current government that dismissed 800 years of parliamentary tradition by asking for unfettered taxation and spending authority. It wanted to bypass this place. It wanted to bypass democracy.

It is unbelievable, and it has certainly contributed to this culture of corruption the Liberals preside over. It is essential that we right the ship. The good news is that it is possible, because we have seen difficult times in this country before.

I have heard stories, although I was not born yet when the Prime Minister's father was leading this country, that it was a disastrous time for the west. There were national unity crises, constitutional crises. Flipping the bird to the west is what the Prime Minister's father was doing, and certainly that seems to be the Prime Minister's attitude toward the west as well. There was the national energy program stealing the wealth that could have benefited our country, but instead he targeted his own political self-interest above the national good. We have seen difficult times before, and we have seen the ability and the resilience of Canadians showcased in the innovation, ingenuity and potential that exists in this country. I believe we will see that unleashing of potential again.

However, we have to get back to the point that the House of Commons is in order and can do its job. The foundational element of that is that the government needs to understand it is Parliament that makes the rules. It is Parliament that can call for documents. Ultimately, for the Prime Minister, the government and the members of the governing party, it is Parliament that is the final law-making authority of the land.

My hope is that we can see, through the mechanisms that exist in this place, a level of accountability take place today, in the 44th Parliament, to ensure the government does the right thing and releases the documents. I must be honest; I have my doubts. I saw how the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament when the WE Charity scandal was under way in the midst of COVID. After saying he would not for so many years, he prorogued Parliament the day the documents were sent to the clerk of a committee.

For Canadians watching, proroguing Parliament puts a stop to committee activities. The Prime Minister prorogued Parliament to cover up his family's involvement with an organization that would have gotten hundreds of millions of dollars in sole-source contracts across this country. The lengths to which he goes to cover up the corruption is astounding. So, forgive me when I say I have my doubts that the Liberal government will do the right thing. However, that is where Parliament steps in. Parliament has the ability.

I understand from media reports that there is some dissension in the Liberal ranks. Some MPs are figuring out that it is MPs who are elected to the House of Commons, not governments. It is MPs who make up a party that then forms a government. It is almost hard to believe that I have to explain these basic principles to my colleagues across the way. I am glad, in a sense, that they are waking up and realizing they have the ability to stand up for their constituents. However, I would urge them as well, when it comes to the debate before the House, to take a stand, to allow Parliament to get the documents and the evidence that is required.

An SDTC whistle-blower had this to say:

I think the Auditor General's investigation was more of a cursory review. I don't think the goal and mandate of the Auditor General's office is to actually look into criminality, so I'm not surprised by the fact that they haven't found anything criminal. They're not looking at intent. If their investigation was focused on intent, of course they would find the criminality.

That was from a whistle-blower who put their career on the line to tell the story of what the Liberals have been up to.

As my speech comes to a close, this is a plea to all members in this place, but in particular, to members of the Liberal Party. It is an honour and a privilege to be able to stand and represent the people we do, but along with that comes great responsibility.

As for the fact that we have a Prime Minister and members of the government who are so quick to dismiss the need for integrity and accountability in the structures of governing our country, I would urge them all, and this is a plea, to stand up for what is right, stand up for accountability, and stand up and demand that these documents be released. If there is nothing to hide, then we will see that.

Madam Speaker, forgive me for suggesting that if someone has nothing to hide, they do not go to the extremes to hide that the government has been doing. The question before the House and before so many Canadians is simple. The government must release the documents so the investigation can be done, to take that small step to bring integrity and accountability back to the institutions that are so dear and so important and that, I would hope, we all love so much.

I had the honour of celebrating with a number of others from the class of 2019. I would like to thank, once again, the people of Battle River—Crowfoot for the honour and the opportunity to serve them, now for five years, in Canada's Parliament.

[Committees of the House, October 24th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, being a member of the heritage committee and having the honour of fulfilling the shadow minister role during this time, I was shocked when the Liberals, along with the Bloc Québécois, rejected the motion the member brought forward asking for some accountability and answers on a sports scandal that truly shocked the world and put Canada and its athletes at a disadvantage when there should have been a coming together of our nation. It was the leadership and just simply being able to demand answers. I do not understand why for the Liberals at every turn, whether it is sports, corruption or the fiscal status of the country, their default answer to everything seems to be to bury their heads in the sand, cover it up and hide the real answers from Canadians.

[Committees of the House, October 24th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, for four years under the watch of the current government, Sport Canada sat on serious allegations, and that member and the government he supports did nothing. I find it rich that that member would suggest tangible action should not be taken, especially when it was that member who, on Monday, denied a unanimous consent motion brought forward to this place. Some of his constituents probably have some questions about the politics he is playing in that regard.

[Committees of the House, October 24th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that little change in attitude with the Bloc acknowledging there could be, in fact, a Conservative government at some point in the future. I certainly hope that is sooner than later.

When it comes to concrete and tangible actions, the foundation of my speech was to articulate exactly that. It is one thing to talk, to have nice press releases and announcements and even training systems and questionnaires that have to be answered. Tangible action, and the results that follow that tangible action being quantified and accountability being enforced, is something that needs to happen, especially when it comes to an issue as important as ensuring our children, our athletes, are kept safe in this country. Tangible action is absolutely required. It is why Conservatives put forward a dissenting report. We will take that action when we have the opportunity to make the changes needed in this country.

[Committees of the House, October 24th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand in this place and talk to issues that are so important to Canadians.

It is interesting that the previous Liberal member spoke a lot about how his experience of an athlete has informed policy. I wish the Liberals would take that same approach when it comes to some of the expertise offered by, for example, farmers in this place to help inform things like agriculture and environmental policy.

Before I jump into my speech, Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the fantastic member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington.

I rise to address an important issue, safe sport, and the need to ensure that Canadians have trust within the institutions, whether it is a parent dropping their kids off with an athletic organization or our athletes going on an international trip to compete. Over the last number of years, dating back to 2018 in specific instances, and throughout history, we have seen examples where people have taken advantage of that trust and have abused and hurt athletes. It is unacceptable and it needs to stop. We cannot overstate how important it is to ensure that we have those very real and honest conversations.

When it comes down to it, Canadians and our country should and can be proud of much of what we have accomplished in sport, whether it be the things that make it onto television or minor sport associations. Unlike what the previous Liberal member thinks, I am very proud of a professional and amateur rodeo circuit, a sport of which we can be proud.

I also am very proud of my two boys, who had their first year of baseball this past year. I had a fantastic time learning some of those key and formational skills of teamwork and the discipline associated with team sport. I am sure each member of the House, either directly or one or two steps removed, has a story, whether it be themselves, or their children or a family member, of being involved in various levels of sport.

We cannot understate how important it is that we are able to trust those in authority, especially when it can be in vulnerable situations. There is a power structure in the way sports organizations are run, and we see how abuse has taken place, and that is absolutely egregious.

I appreciate my colleague from Quebec moving this concurrence motion, because it gives us the opportunity to not only talk about these issues, but also to ensure that action is taken so we can, as a nation, demand there be excellence and trust within the existing structures. As parliamentarians, looking at national sport organizations all the way down to the parents dropping their young kids off for those minor sports, there has to be trust throughout. When that trust breaks down, it leads to absolutely tragic situations.

We heard about a number of those scenarios in relation to Hockey Canada and gymnastics in hearings at the status of women committee. Parliament has heard about tragic stories where action should have been taken but was not. Words are not enough, and the result is that lives are broken and destroyed.

The idea of sport is an important one. This is not lost on me. As I mentioned, my kids started organized sport at a young age. Sport has an impact in building a resilient workforce and a capable structure. With the Olympics and the Paralympics this summer, we saw national pride expressed through sport.

To reference rodeo again, my personal favourite sport, a number of local athletes from Battle River—Crowfoot competed in the Canadian Finals Rodeo a number of weeks ago. I am very proud that a high school friend of mine will be going to the National Finals Rodeo in a couple of weeks.

We talk about sport and international competitions as being a point of pride. They give us something to believe in, including when times are tough.

I remember watching the gold medal game in the 2020 Olympics at a professor's house. It was incredible, a moment of intense national pride when Canada scored that winning goal. At the foundational level, when it comes to the role the government plays, it has to ensure that these national sport organizations and the leadership they provide in sport in this country can be trusted every step of the way.

I want to highlight a number of things that Conservatives, who were proud to participate in the report we are debating concurrence in today, put forward in addition to the work the committee put into the overall report. A number of additional recommendations were submitted in a dissenting report to ensure we can have that trust restored, as I referenced before.

The first one is at the very foundation of everything we are talking about: Sport Canada must hold national sports organizations accountable. There has to be accountability throughout the entire system, from leadership at the top all the way through our sports organizations. I have heard examples from constituents where that has not been the case, where there is erosion of trust and an inability by different organizations to have the clear accountability structure that is required to ensure that happens.

The second recommendation Conservatives highlighted in the dissenting report is that the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner must investigate complaints in a timely and impartial fashion and enforce consequences for non-compliance. It is great to have an office with an idea, but I have heard from other members of civil society who have been through various ombudsman processes and whatnot that an office needs teeth to ensure there can be investigations and an actual resolution of concerns that are brought forward. It may look nice on paper and may even have a nice office in a downtown building somewhere, but if it cannot result in action, then one truly has to ask what the point is. It comes back to that fundamental concept of trust. We have to be able to trust the process, investigate in an impartial fashion, investigate complaints in a timely manner and enforce consequences for non-compliance.

The third recommendation the dissenting report put forward was that Sport Canada must work with provincial and territorial governments to ensure provincial and post-secondary sport organizations are held accountable. It goes without saying that sport does not start and end in the nation's capital. I am sure we all have stories, whether it is our children, ourselves or high school sports team members all the way up to professional athletes. We have to ensure a team Canada approach, so to speak, that goes across governments and different levels of organizations to ensure accountability, again coming back to that fundamental principle of trust.

I would note the fourth recommendation in the dissenting report is that Sport Canada must establish a public registry. I want to dive into this very briefly. This is fundamentally important. As we heard in testimony before the status of women committee, there has to be the ability for athletes, coaches, parents and others involved in organizations to know that the person they are entrusting with either their lives, their athletes' lives or their children's lives can be trusted, to ensure they are going in with eyes wide open. That full accountability and trust needs to be there.

When it comes to the government's response, I found it interesting that the previous speaker talked about how great the government has been doing, yet it knew about allegations at Sport Canada for four years and did nothing. Action needs to be taken, trust needs to be restored and this debate today is an important step. However, without action, it is just words.

[Privilege, October 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to enter into debate on the important matters that are before the House. We are soon coming to the close of what I believe is the 13th day of debate on a question of privilege.

The many Canadians who I know are watching, and watching with great concern, may ask, “What is ‘privilege’ and why does it matter?” It is a word that is used in many different contexts across society, but when it comes to the idea of privilege within Parliament and within our parliamentary tradition, the Westminster system of governance that goes back more than eight centuries to the mother Parliament in the United Kingdom, there are constitutional principles that speak to the idea that members of Parliament have a thing called “privilege”.

To unpack that just briefly, it has to do with Parliament and its members, of which a Parliament is made up. That is why, after an election, there is a Parliament. We are in the 44th Parliament, which is made up of 338 MPs. A government is not the Parliament, but rather a Parliament empowers and gives authority to a government to be able to make decisions. The Prime Minister and the government have survived only because a majority, which includes the NDP and often the Bloc Québécois, has given the authority for the government to continue to survive.

It speaks to the idea of privilege and the foundational principle that in our democratic system, it is elected members of Parliament who make up a Parliament. This place and the institutions; the traditions; and the constitutional conventions, both written and unwritten, an important aspect that sets our parliamentary democracy apart from, for example, that of our American counterparts, speak about what our parliamentary system is.

Part of what that is, and a key part of why we are having the debate and discussion here today, is that the government finds itself in conflict with the very constitutional foundation of what our democracy is. When I first spoke to the motion 13 days ago, I outlined some of the specifics surrounding that. I now have the opportunity to once again enter into the discussion and to highlight again how important it is that this place be allowed, be empowered in, and above all be respected in its ability to call for, in this case, documents.

In the aftermath of the privilege motion's having coming forward, I wrote a news column to share with my constituents what was happening and what is so important about documents. As with the idea of privilege, it is about more than just a stack of documents that would highlight something about the issue at hand. It is about the ability for Parliament to ensure that it has access to something that it, only by its power, is able to inform. In fact I remember that there was some controversy a number of years back when a reporter, I believe, said that Parliaments come and go but the government stays.

The only reason the government stays is that Parliament, the supreme law-making authority of the land, allows it to. The only reason a prime minister can be in office is that Parliament allows that prime minister to be, in what we call “confidence”. I do not think that my constituents have ever had confidence in the current government, the Prime Minister and the coalition, but certainly from coast to coast to coast we are hearing increasingly that Canadians do not have confidence.

There is the idea that a Parliament has the ability to have unfettered access to documents to ensure that, in this case, there is significant alleged criminality. A whistle-blower has made the statement that it was a sponsorship-level type of scandal.

We will look back to the Chrétien and Martin era and the Gomery inquiry. I remember in fact that when I was a young politico, my then MP, Kevin Sorenson, sent me the abridged copy of the Gomery inquiry, which it outlined some of the incredible corruption perpetrated by then prime minister Jean Chrétien and followed by former prime minister Paul Martin. That brought in some of the most significant accountability reforms in our nation's history when former prime minister Stephen Harper was elected.

With that push to ensure mechanisms, we brought in the Ethics Commissioner and ethics rules for parliamentarians to ensure that there were conflict of interest rules, which the Prime Minister has been found guilty of breaking, like many other cabinet ministers.

However, it comes back to the very idea that Parliament is the supreme law-making authority of the land, and Parliament represents democracy. Before us we have an almost $400-million scandal with conflicts of interest and hand-picked Liberal appointments. Quite frankly, it just stinks. Whistle-blowers have come forward, putting their careers on the line, to say that this is wrong. They could not in good conscience continue to operate within the context of not letting people know the level of corruption.

That is why over the last 13 or so days, it has been bewildering that, despite Parliament and the constitutional conventions that have established this place and its more than eight centuries of history, those Liberals are so quick to dismiss the whistle-blowers to cover up their corruption.

It would be very straightforward. That government could release these documents. It could do it today and then this Parliament could get on with its business, but the Liberals refuse, and one has to ask “why?” It seems like each and every day there is a different excuse as to why they will not do it. They say one thing one day and one cabinet minister stands up and peacocks about something, and then another will stand up and say something else. It seems like their message is always changing, but Canadians are asking the simple question “why?”

Why are they unwilling to allow full transparency on the $400 million? It would not be for MPs to simply peruse these documents, but to give the RCMP unfettered access to ensure that we can get answers to the very foundational questions about this scandal and the alleged corruption that were brought forward, not by Conservatives, but by whistle-blowers, in some cases within the Liberals' own department.

I look forward to being able to pick up on a series of further points tomorrow. I would simply conclude my speech today by saying this: The government has created a circumstance where it has normalized constitutional crises, and that is where we are today. We have seen it before when the Liberals tried to have unfettered taxation ability, and because of Conservatives pushing back, that was rejected.

We see on a regular basis that the Liberals are willing to throw the Constitution under the bus for their narrow political interests, and it is time for that to end. It is time for accountability. It is time for Parliament, and the supremacy that it should enjoy in our democracy, to be restored, and when Conservatives are elected, that is what we will do.