CBC Panel Blasts Mark Carney - "We've Never Seen Anything Like This...EVER"

What we're witnessing today, I'm going to explain to my 15 -year -old.

We have never seen anything like this, ever.

To have amendments rammed down our throats without debate, without discussion, is patently wrong.

For weeks, Conservatives have been warning that Mark Carney's government is ramming major legislation through Parliament while brushing off legitimate concerns as conspiracy theories.Now, even CBC's At Issue panel is saying the alarm bells are real, saying it was unprecedented.After over a year of carrying the torch for the Liberal Party, is the media finally starting to understand what all of us have been saying?

Let's take a look.

I actually want to talk about what happened this week, because I think it feeds into a possible problem that the liberals need to be attuned to.Last week, Michael Sabia, speaking at the Eurasia Group, this is the clerk of the Privy Council, talked about one of the things the Kearney government has that's an asset, which is trust from the public.And we have seen some softening of trust.poll numbers in the sense that the NDP is rising.That's great news for the Conservatives, even though they're not doing so great.What happened this week is that the Liberals decided to use their majority to shut down debate and pass legislation that is very controversial, bills that were not studied, in some cases had no witnesses that even testified as to whether this was good or bad.

In a finance bill, there were measures that basically give cabinet the right to overrule the health minister who decides that a pesticide is too toxic for the environment and should not be allowed to be used under any circumstances.We had the lawful access bill thathas gotten a bit more attention across the country.And the government completely shut down the debate.In some cases, they even backdated the ability of opposition members to bring forward amendments, so only government members could bring forward amendments.We have never seen anything like this, ever.

Like, we have talked a lot about these kind of moves during the Harper era, especially during his majority government, and with reason.I think we deserve to talk and highlight what is happening in this case.And I bring it up because the trust issue.The government house leader talked about, he hoped the conspiracies around C -22, the lawful access bill, would just go away, that people would, time would allow these to pass.He talked about tinfoil hat people.This is not a way to bring people along.

If anything, it fuels conspiracies.So there was no reason to pass these bills.They could have taken the summer to study them and bring more Canadians on side.And I think that they are taking, they risk taking, I should say, Canadians' votes for granted.I think right now the vote is parked in the very same way that Pierre Poilievre's vote was parked, because people don't like the other options.So I think they need to be sensitive to this.

So this is fascinating because Althea is typically liberal leaning.If you've seen her on this, and I'm sure you've seen her speak on this panel many, many times, it's probably one of the reasons the CBC brings her on is because she's liberal friendly.It was fascinating to see how she was conducting herself, not just what she was saying.There was legitimate concern coming out of her and she looked scared.

Well, because this is scary.The way our democracy works is the government puts forward bills and the opposition's job is tooppose them or oppose certain clauses in them or try to add things that would make the bill better.And in this case the Liberals have completely taken that option away from the opposition.And not just them, but they've taken away the ability for members of the public and stakeholders to come into committee and speak on these bills and say, you know what, you can't implement it like that because X, Y, Z. I mean, last time I looked at Bill C -22, there was something like 50 briefs.How many witnesses were in that committee?

Not 50.

Right.And we're going to get to what they've done or not done in committee with C -22 in a minute.But the fact that Althea is saying, you know, yeah we we were we were going at hard at the harbour government for doing some of this stuff this has never happened before and we should be focusing more on this this this is her telling CBC we should be focusing on this we should be criticizing this because this is very concerning and she's right they didn't have to pass these bills right now no because it's still gonna be the summer session and it's going to be on the barbecue circuit, and you're not going to have these bills actually moving along.

Well, and the thing is, Parliament doesn't just like completely shut down.They generally stop legislating.But if they need committees, they can run those committees during the summer and everybody just zooms in.

Right.So what's the issue of continuing to study this over over the summer?Now, the Liberals will be telling Canadians, oh, look at all the stuff that we've done.And they've already tried to start doing that.You know, we've we've we've we've passed, you know, all of these bills and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.Well, The flip side of that is what you're going to start to hear, if Althea is correct, is the mainstream media is going to say, well,

wait a minute, what what is in that?And why wasn't this properly considered?Why wasn't this given the due diligence that bills typically are?And the conservatives are going to be on the barbecue circuit, warning Canadians of what has been happening and pointing to the mainstream media validating their concern.So this may be an interesting summer for the liberals, and it may not go the way they want.

Let's hear from everyone else then, Chantal.

I agree that it's unprecedented to find a government using its newly found majority not obtained at the polls to speed up or force feed nine bills to the House of Commons.I don't think I've ever seen anything like this.And I believe that in the end, that leads one to poor relationships between the parties.And you never know when you're going to need help from across the aisle in instances.But it also leads to bad legislation, because no legislation that is brought in in a hurry is perfect, and to not want to hear what others have to say about this is kind of leading you into a place that you're not going to like a couple of years from now.Last minute or so to you there, Andrew.

I'll just add a couple of things to that.One is, it's playing to a certain stereotype, if you will, of liberals.You know, if the besetting sin of conservatives is a certain chippy defensiveness, the besetting sin of liberals is arrogance.And the smart ones in the liberal camp always know that that's their kryptonite.So it's not good to be playing to that.It's not good for a guy who's kind of the top dog type, as Mark Carney is, to be seen to be too conscious of it.

A little bit of personal humility and governmental humility is always becoming in somebody who is, in fact, the top dog.Final point I'll make, just as an addition to this in terms of the trust issue, and maybe a sleeper on this, is artificial intelligence, AI.The public is really worried, really scared by this.All the polls show it.That paper that the federal government brought out talked a lot about trust, but did very little in terms of concrete proposals to try to allay public fears in this.The overriding message of the thing was full speed ahead.

And that could come back to bite them.

They would probably point to the privacy legislation as trying to build trust.I'm not saying that it will, but...

But in fact, it doesn't.It makes the Privacy Commission accountable to the government rather than accountable to Parliament.Yes, and those are all bridges that they will have to cross.

Notice at the end how rosemary tries to do a little bit of damage control yeah i did actually and the whole panel just collapsed on her well you know they'll probably try to point to this new privacy law and and coin althea and shut like they're all just no no no no well because this is concerning this is going to affect i mean not only how canadians interact with each other online but This also really sets a precedent for our democracy that, yes, sometimes you get a bill that's being filibustered, and the government will come down and say, OK, we're having three more hours of debate on this, and then that's it.It's moving out of committee.But to rush through nine in this manner is just unheard of.

It's unprecedented, as they said.

Well, and with a majority that they did not earn at the ballot box.And you will hear people online saying, well, I didn't vote for a majority or minority government.No, you didn't.Individually, that's not a box you check off on your ballot.But collectively, across all 343 ridings, Canadians voted for a minority liberal government.

Right.Now, props to Chantal, because sheeven pointed that out in her answer that you know they have they have this newfound majority that they didn't detain at the polls.I appreciate when the panelists call a spade a spade.I may not agree with everything Chantal says but I do appreciate when they when they do call that out because this is what needs to happen on mainstream media.Now in in many cases this would be the end of the video but We're going to be showing you what the mainstream media doesn't.

We're going to be showing you what they won't show you.Now they talk about what the Liberals did, but they don't tell you how they did it.And this is what Canadians deserve to know.So how did they do this?The main way that governments can do this is through what's called a programming motion.What a programming motion is, is one of the most powerful tools a government has.

It's kind of scary in a way, and this is why you see this concern, because they can use a motion to create reality.They can use a motion to say things have been deemed to have happened.They can use a motion to actually change the day in the house.It's pretty wild what you can do with this.Here's what the programming motion is for C22.We're not going to go through this.

But this is the programming motion for C -22.Now, if you have a majority or if you're in a minority, but you have support from another party, you can get these across.So what this essentially does is this says, you know what, we're done with C -22.So what this mandates is that the committee has 30 minutes of debate left for C -22.That's it.And then they must proceed to clause by clause voting.

they will not stop until they're done and then it will be deemed to have been finished at committee and then it'll be deemed to have been reported to the house and then it's deemed to have been read at third reading so because they they have a majority and they can vote this through it can't be stopped and this is how they're able to actually get this through and this was a big concern because there was over a hundred amendments proposed for C -22.And that's just what was on the record.The Green Party had additional amendments as well that they wanted to bring because they were just as concerned as the other opposition parties.And over eight hours, they got through two because of the concerns that were in them.Now, C -22 is broken into two different parts, part one and part two.Most of the parties agree with everything in part one.

Part two is where all of the problems are, and that's where the Conservatives, the Bloc, the NDP, the Green Party, and civil liberties associations across this country were concerned about.They didn't even invite, allow the Privacy Commissioner to come in and weigh in on Bill C -22 when one of the primary concerns is privacy.So what ended up happening is on Wednesday night, the committee was forced to sit.They sat down at 1030 PM and the meeting commenced and they had 30 minutes.for debate.That was it.

And then they had to go through every single amendment, but not in the way that you would think.And this is a bit of a sneak peek as to what happened.

At the end of the day, we are here to work.We are here to debate.And there is one thing we will not do in 28 minutes, and that is debate.The motion that was passed in the House tonight precludes debate.It precludes debate on matters of privacy, on matters that may impact the Charter.I shouldn't say may, that do impact the Charter, that engage Section 8 of the Charter.

And here we are talking about provisions here that we will pass without debate that a court will someday be considering.Make no mistake.A court will consider the words that we pass on paper here someday, and they will decide the constitutionality of those words.And we are expected to pass those words without debate.To me, that is unconscionable.11 years, 12 years, we've had a Liberal government.

We got this motion put on us on Tuesday before we left.Tuesday.Not Monday, not the Friday before, Tuesday.In fact, the Liberal government put forward a wish list of bills they want to pass.You know what wasn't on there?Bill C -22.

So yeah, I'm a bit animated here.The government said they didn't want this bill.And at the literal last minute, Wednesday night, we are talking about amendments that impact each and every Canadian.And make no mistake, on the Conservative side, we all want to put bad people in jail.But this ain't the way to do it.To have amendments rammed down our throats without debate, without discussion, is patently wrong.

And yes, we will sit here at the table.Yes, we will oblige with the process.We will adhere to democracy, the motion that was passed.That doesn't mean we like it.And moreover, it doesn't make it right.What is happening here may have been duly passed, but it is wrong.

And one day, In two years, three years, five years, a court may be reviewing our words and they may well look at what happened here tonight and talk about the lack of discussion, the lack of consideration when they were reviewing whether amendments put forward that aren't even public yet.We can't even talk about this.By the way, who breached parliamentary privilege with the Toronto Star?Who breached privilege with the Toronto Star?Am I in the twilight zone here?They don't know.

I think my point has been made.

I do want to thank you, but I also want to pose one question to each of you before I move on.And really, and I'm not trying to keep you to a one -word answer, but I think it probably will be a yes or no.I would just like to have your opinion on one thing.Throughout this process in Clause by Clause so far, we have asked questions about the amendments that have been presented by the NDP, by the bloc.by the Conservatives.I don't think we got to a Liberal or a Government amendment as yet.

But we did have some questions, and I thought that they were important questions, and I believed that they were relevant questions.And during that period of time, we had a lot of questions, and part of the reason why we had a lot of questions is because the first part of this process before clause by clause was so rushed we could barely have time to catch our breath and understand fully this this long many page 90 page bill right so my question is simple when we asked questions about each amendment as we looked at them did you were they relevant questions to the bill or to the amendments obviously a passionate frustrated irritated intervention by Mr. Caputo?

Well Mr. Caputo is an attorney.He understands the law.He was a prosecutor so he knows that if these bills are written poorly and if they violate the Charter then down the road there's going to be a mess in court and the government's going to be back in court wasting taxpayer money just like they were with the Emergencies Act.So it's better to take the time get it right now and avoid all this mess in the future.

Well it's one of the reasons he's in on this study and it's one of the reasons he's vice chair of that committee it's because he's looking at this from a prosecutorial lens and he might be able to see some of the benefits in this but at the same time he's also seeing the dangers in the bill.Now The reason for Ms. Kirkland actually asking this question is because, again, you hear the liberals saying that the conservatives are being obstructionists and they're deliberately preventing this bill.moving along.

Yeah well it's written poorly of course they're going to prevent it they want to sit there and make sure that it's written correctly as they said so that years down the line you're not wasting all this money taxpayer money on lawyers and court fees and things like this because the bill is written poorly.

So you have her asking this question to prove her point and to prove the point of the conservatives that we haven't been wasting time we've been trying to give this bill the attention it deserves.So let's listen to the witnesses and hear if they think that the Conservatives have been obstructionists or if they've been asking relevant questions.

I found all of your questions to me were relevant to what we were talking about.

All of the questions that you asked me also were important questions to be asked.

The questions were all definitely interesting and within the realm of what we were talking about.

The motion that was passed, motion 13 in the House tonight, was in essence muzzling us.Now we can just say yes or no, basically, after this.So that's why it's important for me to ask the questions.Because a process has been bypassed here.Whether we want to answer the questions or we agree with the premise of the questions aren't really the point.The point is that As parliamentarians, we have a duty to ask the questions.

We have a duty to ascertain, as best as we can, the answer.And we have a duty to find out whether or not an amendment is worth passing or not.Today could possibly be one of my most disappointing moments in this whole process as a new member.And normally I'm not emotional, but I'm tired.Like everyone else, we're worn out.We've been working hard.

So what we're witnessing today I'm going to explain to my 15 -year -old.She's asking, when I say goodnight to her, why are you going to committee tonight, right?And I'm going to explain to her that we are going to pass or vote on nearly 100 amendments without discussing them, without understanding them, or without, to be even more clear, letting Canadians understand them.We've been trying to do our jobs.And I get passionate about this because lawful access actually is important to me. I was told tonight that I wasn't listening to Durham regional police officers.Well, I tell you, surely I have.

I've listened to them carefully.And of course, they want to have better tools and they're looking for lawful access.But everyone I've talked to individually, and when I've explained the process, has said, we want to get it, but we don't want to get it that way.We want to get it, and we want to get it right.And that's all we've been asking for.In this pre -study, we had 48 witnesses in just over eight hours.

It was a lot to ram in very quickly.We had issues with briefs.We didn't get them in time, not because the clerks didn't do a great job.They did a great job.We didn't get them in time, not because the translators were too slow, but because they had a lot of work to do.And why do they have a lot of work to do?

Because we tried to rush too much into too little of time.And that is not democracy either.I appreciate very much the members from The NDP, who've been sitting and presenting amendments, who gave us amendments to look at.From the Green Party, Ms. May, thank you.And from the Bloc, we have, all opposition parties, every last one of us, been working to do this right.And, you know, liberals can laugh.

They can laugh at processes.They can laugh at emotions.They can laugh at the passion.But guess what?I came here to do a job.And for the first time in 14 months, I feel like I'm being asked to not do my job, muzzle and just vote.

And that is unacceptable.

This is somebody who cares deeply about this country, about our democracy, about her constituents, and the ability to do her job, not just properly, but to the best of her potential and to represent her constituents well.And, you know, sometimes we hear things like, oh, well, you know, the MPs just are in it for a paycheck or blah, blah, blah.No, Ms. Kirkland actually cares.She's one of those MPs that actually cares.And you could see it in Frank Caputo as well.He actually cares.

They care about our democracy and they care about Canadians.

Well, and think about this, folks.One of the things that shocked me was when she said 48 witnesses in eight hours.Think about that.Because in some of the most intense investigations that we've seen on Arrivecam, on SDTC, SNC, like all of these different investigations, the most intense ones typically have one or two witnesses for an hour each, right?

Or sometimes you'll get one witness for two hours, depending.

Right.Yeah.You know, when I was in committee, it was myself and one other person.We were there for an hour.So if you use the.

math then I would have expected there to be 16 right 16 witnesses at an eight -hour period maximum right yeah when you have 48 witnesses in eight hours how do you how do you square that well this is just the Liberals going we know what's best for this country and we have a majority so we're gonna push it through anybody with a conservative MP block MP, NDP, Green, like we don't get a say because they're just saying, well, too bad.This is the law and we're shoving it through.

Now, liberals will say, oh, well, concerns, concerns, concerns, Harper, Harper, Harper, Harper, Harper.Let's take a look at a comparable comparative bill under the Harper era that went through.So, ladies and gentlemen, here's C -22.This is where it is now.So you can see on June 18th, they had finished committee, finished report stage, finished third reading.and sent it to the House or to the Senate to be read for the first time.

That is lightning speed and you can see that it completed second reading on April 20th and it finished consideration at committee.less than two months later.This is Bill C -13.So this was back during the Harper era.You can see October 16, 2013 to August 2, 2015.That was the last parliamentary session under Stephen Harper.

And you can see this bill, which is a similar type of bill, it's amending the criminal code.And there is a bunch of hoopla from the liberals that this was going to violate civil rights and all of this stuff, right?Okay, fine.So it completed second reading Monday, April 28.2014.it finished consideration committee June 13th 2014.

So a similar time frame.About six weeks.Notice report stage.Report stage actually happened in October four months later and then third reading was three weeks after that.Then it went to the senate and then they completed that in December of 2014.So what's the big difference between these two?

On the left are the meetings that they had under C -22.So you can see there's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and then one chamber sitting after that was completed.

And there was no debate during that as far as I understand.

Correct.Now look at C -13 under Stephen Harper.Similar time frame but 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 different committee meetings.

Twice as many.

You have similar bills and you have two different governments.two different parties leading those governments, but you have completely different oversight and time allotment to actually go through this stuff.Now, are we saying the Harper government was perfect?No.Are we saying the Harper government didn't also try to usher through quickly some pieces of legislation?Of course they did.

But when you listen to that CBC panel and they say that this is unprecedented, Analthea, makes it very clear.

We have never seen anything like this ever.

Well, and if they're complaining about the Harper government rushing through Bill C -13, and that took several months from start to finish, and now you're looking at C -22 going through, well, completing committee, then going through the report stage,

going through third reading and off to the senate in a day that's insane so this is what has happened in the last couple of weeks of parliament and this is what the is scaring the heck out of the mainstream media panelists and for good reason maybe now you're actually going to believe all of us tinfoil hat people and the warnings that we have been sounding over Mr. Carney and his government.

Right.Because this isn't democracy.And honestly, you can see how upset Frank Caputo and Rhonda Kirkland were.And these are the people that actually care about this country and their constituents.If you're able to, I think a kind word to either of them would would go a long way, because I think as an MP, they hear all sorts of upsetting things because yes that's part of their job but I think they deserve to hear that you know they're doing a great job by sticking up for us and thank you.