House of Commons Hansard #353 of the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was documents.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Canada Health Act First reading of Bill C-414. The bill amends the Canada Health Act to include community-based mental health, addictions, and substance use services as insured services, requiring provinces and territories to provide coverage. 200 words.

Petitions

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Members debate the government's refusal to provide unredacted documents on the Sustainable Development Technology Canada fund, following Auditor General's findings of conflicts of interest and ineligible projects. Opposition demands documents go to RCMP, citing parliamentary privilege. Government cites Charter rights and police independence concerns, suggesting committee review and accusing opposition of playing political games and filibustering. 55000 words, 7 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives focus on the carbon tax, citing the PBO report to argue it costs Canadians more, linking it to the rising cost of living, and repeatedly calling for a carbon tax election. They also criticize the government over a $400-million green slush fund scandal, alleging obstruction of justice for refusing to provide documents to the RCMP, and raise issues of national security and income inequality.
The Liberals defend the carbon tax and Canada Carbon Rebate using the PBO report, highlighting climate change impacts. They accuse Conservatives of interfering with police and parliamentary proceedings. They also emphasize support for supply management, social programs like dental care and the Canada child benefit, addressing foreign interference, and condemning groups like Samidoun.
The Bloc criticizes the Senate's obstruction of Bill C-282 on supply management and calls on the government to intervene. They also demand the Liberals increase old age security for seniors 65-74 via Bill C-319.
The NDP raise concerns about the high cost of groceries and Canadians relying on credit cards. They criticize the Liberals' failure on health care, government lawyers' offensive language regarding clean water for First Nations, and call for action on the Israel-Gaza situation.
The Green Party raises concerns about the Six Nations' community health centre due to black mould and inadequate support from Indigenous Services Canada.

Finance Members debate the Canadian economy and the impact of government policies, focusing on the Liberal government's capital gains tax increase. Conservative MP Tracy Gray argues it hurts small businesses, investment, productivity, and housing construction, citing constituent concerns. Liberal MP Jenica Atwin challenges the claim it is a job-killing tax, citing a report suggesting it benefits the wealthy. 1500 words, 10 minutes.

Adjournment Debates

Kitchener-Toronto railway service Mike Morrice asks Adam van Koeverden for a timeline from the province on two-way, all-day GO train service between Kitchener and Toronto. Van Koeverden notes the federal government has committed funding and says that GO train service is a provincial matter, mentioning a by-election in Milton.
Carbon tax effects in Alberta Martin Shields cites a PBO report that Albertans will pay more in carbon tax than they receive in rebates. Adam van Koeverden responds that the PBO didn't consider the costs of climate inaction. Shields notes that the carbon tax hurts public services. Van Koeverden blames Alberta's high-carbon electricity grid.
Decriminalization of hard drugs Jamil Jivani criticizes the Liberal government for considering a proposal to decriminalize hard drugs, citing the overdose crisis and Minister Lametti's praise for the idea. Adam van Koeverden responds that the government rejected a similar request from Toronto and accuses Jivani of spreading misinformation.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

10:30 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, it is beyond me how Conservative member after Conservative member can stand in their place and mislead Canadians on the reality of what is happening on this issue. This will go to the procedure and House affairs committee, and the Conservatives are filibustering. They are using the excuse of asking who cares if Stephen Harper never did it. They have a new position that they are applying to this particular government, even though it counters what the RCMP and the national Auditor General are saying. They are saying that this tactic that is used by the Conservatives with respect to the information being unredacted puts the issues into jeopardy, whether in terms of charter violations or other things. However, the Conservatives close their eyes, put their head in the sand and ignore that.

Why do they ignore the RCMP and the Auditor General?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB

Madam Speaker, it is actually quite lovely to be able to address my colleague from Winnipeg North. I hold in my hand a—

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

10:30 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

I am sorry. The hon. member cannot reference a document she may want to speak about.

The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake has the floor.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North cannot help himself. He has gotten up to speak to the bill at every single possible opportunity; as of last night, he had filibustered it to the tune of 10,151 words, which is over an hour of speaking time. If he had no problem with this, he would simply stop speaking and allow the documents to go unredacted; however, the Liberals have something to hide. That is precisely why the member for Winnipeg North continues to get up on his feet and filibuster, preventing Canadians from getting to the bottom of it and getting to the truth.

We are simply asking for the government to allow these documents to go to the RCMP. If they have nothing to hide, why do they continue talking about the bill?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

10:30 a.m.

Bloc

Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC

Madam Speaker, one thing that strikes me about the whole SDTC saga is that the government is hiding behind excuses founded on noble principles when, basically, Parliament is asking it to produce documents.

Can my colleague tell me a little more about Parliament having the right to demand documents from the government and the government having a duty to turn them over to Parliament?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB

Madam Speaker, it is not very often that I agree with the Bloc Québécois, but this is one subject on which we very much agree. It is true. Parliament has the authority to demand documents. What is more, the Speaker ordered the government to provide the documents.

There is now a question of privilege before the House, which is rather rare in Parliament. However, over the past nine years of this NDP-Liberal government, there have been increasingly frequent conflicts of interest and questions of privilege. That is a direct result of the fact that the Liberal government does not want to tell Canadians the truth.

It is imperative that the RCMP get these documents to carry out a full investigation.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

October 10th, 2024 / 10:30 a.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, certainly I do not think anybody disagrees that the Liberals need to produce the documents. What I find bizarre though is that the Conservatives have stopped any sort of movement in the House by filibustering their own motion. What are they filibustering? There is the bill that the survivors circle is trying to put on record to ban forced sterilization of indigenous women. The only thing blocking the tabling of the bill, a bill that apparently the Conservatives have said they support, is the Conservatives' blocking their own motion.

What does that mean? It means that indigenous women are still at risk of experiencing forced sterilization in this country. Why is that? It is because the Conservatives use this place as a game, when lives are on the line and when there are serious matters that we need to deal with.

Why is the member actively participating in blocking the Conservatives' own motion?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB

Madam Speaker, the wonderful people of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake elected me to bring their voices to Parliament. They elected me to stand up for what is right and to stand up against corruption, chaos and all the challenges that have happened after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government.

The only person in here filibustering on the bill is the member for Winnipeg North, who, as I said earlier, as of last night had spoken over 10,000 words on this piece alone, over an hour's worth, because he cannot help himself. He is so concerned about having the documents go unredacted to the RCMP that he gets up on his feet at every single opportunity. If NDP members have a problem, perhaps they should talk to the member for Winnipeg North.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB

Madam Speaker, one of the things we continue to hear from the Liberals is around charter rights. I did not hear anything in the member's speech around charter rights that the Liberals have been talking about, so I was wondering whether she could mention a little bit about that. My understanding of the charter is that it protects individual Canadians from overreaches of the government; it does not protect the government from having to disclose documents.

The Liberals also talk about the police needing to have independence. However, my understanding is that if a person sees a crime or if they are concerned that somebody has stolen from them, they call the police and provide them with the evidence that they think proves their case. In this case, we are asking for the documents so the House of Commons can pass the information on to the RCMP. What are the member's comments on this?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB

Madam Speaker, I find it truly bizarre that the government has changed its tune as to why it cannot release the documents unredacted. It did release some of the documents, but they were redacted. It used a big black marker to cross out wide swaths of information because it does not want it to be seen. However, the interesting piece here is that the most recent argument as to why the documents cannot be released is supposedly charter rights. The government is failing to accept the privilege of Parliament and where we are at.

The Speaker has made a ruling on the case of privilege that is something exceptionally rare, or at least it was prior to the last nine years of the Liberal government, which thinks its job is to decide what Canadians do and do not get to see and what is best for Canadians. Frankly, I am going to stand up for Canadians each and every day, because they deserve better than this.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON

Madam Speaker, the ruling from the Speaker was that the documents were going to go to PROC. I am wondering why you are saying that the ruling was for them to go to the RCMP—

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

10:35 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

Questions and comments need to go through the Chair.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON

Madam Speaker, it was clear that the ruling was that the documents would go to PROC, and we are in agreement with that. I am wondering why the member opposite and her party are filibustering and refusing to let the documents go to PROC, where the question can be studied.

The documents are not only government documents; they are signed with another party. It is that party that is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have heard from the RCMP and from the Auditor General that they are uncomfortable with this precedent. Could you please tell me why the Conservatives are not doing what the order said, which is that the documents should go to PROC?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

10:35 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

Again, questions need to be addressed through the Speaker and not directly to the member.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB

Madam Speaker, the member's question is actually quite wonderful. I think it is one of the first questions I have had that has not been from the member for Winnipeg North. Perhaps it is the first time any of my colleagues has actually received a question posed by someone other than the member for Winnipeg North on this.

This is one of the big challenges we face. The Liberals are so afraid of the truth that they refuse to allow the documents to go unredacted to the RCMP. If they had a space where they were not concerned, they would turn over the documents to the RCMP. Frankly, if wrongdoing happened, the RCMP deserves to have the information. If there was no wrongdoing, then there is no risk in sending it to the RCMP.

The fact that the government is continuing to fight this really should tell all Canadians about the level of corruption in the government when it comes to the green slush fund and in just about all of its activities.

Business of the HouseOrders of the Day

10:40 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 63 to concur in the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Finance, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and at the conclusion of the time provided for debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motions be deemed put and a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.

Business of the HouseOrders of the Day

10:40 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

All those opposed to the hon. parliamentary's secretary moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the hard-working people of Flamborough—Glanbrook. They indeed work hard for the tax dollars they send to every level of government, and they expect that those tax dollars will be respected and spent wisely. That is why it is unfortunate that we are here today talking about growing concerns of the Liberal government's corruption and incompetence.

I am speaking about yet another scandal, this time involving the $400 million of taxpayers' money funnelled into a cesspool of corruption under the guise of the Sustainable Development Technology Canada fund. It is not just a singular incident of scandal; it is the latest in a long, disturbing pattern of Liberal ethics violations. The SDTC scandal is not about some missing dollars here or there; it is about the systemic failure of the government to uphold the most basic values of transparency and accountability. It is a gross breach of trust, one that has eroded Canadians' confidence in their government institutions.

Conservatives warned about this. We have consistently called for transparency. We have called for the documents to be sent unredacted from the green slush fund scandal and handed over to the RCMP. That was the will of Parliament. What was the response from the Liberal government? It was a refusal to comply. When the government ignores the will of Parliament, it is ignoring the will of Canadians, because members are here to represent the will of Canadians.

Let us be clear that when parliamentarians demand documents, we have the legal and democratic authority to do so, yet the government violated the privileges of parliamentarians by refusing to release the requested documents related to the latest scandal.

The Speaker of the House has ruled that parliamentary privilege has indeed been violated and that we must pause the work of the House until this corruption can be properly addressed. It is because, as my colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake said, Canadians deserve better. They deserve to know where their hard-earned tax dollars are going, because they do work hard for the money that they pay in taxes on each paycheque.

However, with the Liberal government, every year we see a new scandal and a new abuse of trust. We have seen them before with the WE Charity scandal, the SNC-Lavalin affair, the Winnipeg lab cover-up, arrive scam, the infamous “other Randy” and of course now the SDTC scandal. This is just the latest chapter in a Liberal government that has been defined by corruption and secrecy. Enough is enough.

Let us first examine the Sustainable Development Technology Canada fund and what it was supposed to be. SDTC was created with a noble goal in mind: to promote innovation and green technology. The fund was supposed to support small and medium-sized businesses, foster collaborations among sectors and enable the development of cutting-edge sustainable technologies that would benefit Canadians.

However, it is clear that this vision has been utterly betrayed. Instead of serving as a driver for innovation and progress, the SDTC fund has been turned into a Liberal slush fund, a vehicle for funnelling millions of taxpayer dollars to the pockets of insiders and Liberal-connected businesses. Instead of supporting Canadians, it has supported the Liberal Party's friends and allies. The Auditor General's investigation found that there were 186 cases of conflict of interest, involving some $400 million paid out.

That is a lot of money, which could have been spent helping small businesses that are struggling. It is money that could have been spent purchasing over 400 MRI machines. It is money that could have been spent on proper equipment for our military so members do not have to buy their own helmet. As we recently saw, $34 million was spent on sleeping bags that did not work for Canadian winters, when it was less than 5°C, which of course is the temperature a good portion of the time in parts of Canada. Imagine that. We could have bought 10 times the number of proper sleeping bags for our military with the amount of money that was funnelled to Liberal friends.

What kind of oversight allows this to happen? There was no oversight. The Auditor General made that clear. The blame for this scandal falls with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. According to the Auditor General, he “did not sufficiently monitor” the contracts that were being handed out to Liberal insiders. I would suggest this was not an accident or an oversight. There was negligence at the highest levels of government and a misuse of public funds.

The Auditor General's investigation revealed an astounding 186 conflicts of interest. Those are 186 instances where taxpayer money could have gone to real innovation, to families struggling with the cost of living and to businesses trying to stay afloat. Instead, the money was funnelled to companies with ties to senior Liberal officials. What kind of government allows this? How can Canadians trust the government when it behaves like this?

The SDTC fund received, overall, a billion dollars in federal funding, and yet $400 million of that was funnelled into ineligible projects. These were projects that by all measures should never have received a single dollar of public funding. The promises made in these applications were overstated, exaggerated or, in some cases, non-existent. This was wilful negligence. These insiders had projects rubber-stamped, knowing full well they did not meet the criteria. A blind eye was turned so the gravy train could keep flowing.

Canadians deserve answers on this. The people of Flamborough—Glanbrook who send their hard-earned tax dollars here want to know where that money went. What did the government do when we, as elected representatives, demanded transparency? It violated parliamentary privilege by refusing to hand over critical documents related to this scandal. The Speaker made it clear that Parliament has the right, actually, the duty, to demand that these documents go unredacted to the RCMP, as was the motion of this Parliament.

We are here to hold the government accountable, to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly and in the best interest of Canadians. I am here specifically on behalf of the people of Flamborough—Glanbrook to watch over their taxpayer dollars. The Liberals have thumbed their noses at Parliament, at the Speaker and at the Canadian people. As their excuse, they claim handing over these documents would blur the line between Parliament and the judiciary. It is not about blurring lines; it is about protecting their friends and hiding their corruption. It is about a government so entrenched in scandal, so determined to shield its insiders, that it is willing to trample on the very principles of transparency that underpin our democracy.

As we stand here discussing yet another glaring example of Liberal mismanagement, it is impossible not to draw comparisons to another scandal that took place, which was mentioned by one of my colleagues earlier this week in debate, and that is the ad scam scandal. At that time, we know, this was a scandal where the Liberal government used public funds for private gain. This was in the early 2000s and involved 40 million public dollars that was funnelled through advertising agencies for work that was never done or was grossly overpaid. That is $40 million, which is no small sum—

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am anticipating there might be a quorum call coming.

Can the Speaker indicate how many Conservatives need to actually be in the chamber if, in fact, they need to be in the chamber as part of the quorum call?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

10:50 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

There have to be at least 20 members of Parliament in the chamber to call a quorum.

The hon. member for Calgary Midnapore also has a point of order.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB

Madam Speaker, I was just about to say to do a quorum call.

And the count having been taken:

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

10:50 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

Yes, there are over 20, between who is in the chamber and online.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

10:50 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

On a point of order, Madam Speaker, this is a Conservative filibuster. There is only one Conservative in the House—

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

10:50 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

I am sorry, the hon. member is not allowed to indicate how many people are in the House. Again, I would just ask members to please be—