Debates of Oct. 11th, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my earlier comments, the concept behind the Sustainable Development Technology Canada fund was good. It made sense. In fact, it was a very wise and competent prime minister who put it in place: Stephen Harper. I do not disagree with that.

What I disagree with is Liberal corruption and insiders enriching themselves over the benefit of Canadians as a whole.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, part of what we have heard in the last many days on this issue, in particular, is this idea that these are Liberal insiders. This is a Liberal-Conservative insider, as a matter of fact. We have pointed out many times that Ms. Verschuren, the former chair of SDTC, donated to both the Liberals and Conservatives during nearly her entire stint as chair of SDTC. She pushed money back to her own company, to Conservative campaigns and to the Conservative Party.

Can the member promise Canadians that, should the Conservatives form government, they will not allow Ms. Verschuren back into this place and that they will ban donations from her to their party?

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that, yes, as a government, we would make sure that Liberal corruption and Liberal conflicts of interest were a thing of the past. The country is desperate for a Conservative government. We will fix the budget, clean up the fiscal mess here in Ottawa and get this country moving again.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in her audit, the Auditor General determined that there were 186 conflicts of interest, totalling hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, the audit did not even include all the contracts. It was just over half of the contracts, and approximately 85% of them were found to have conflicts of interest.

Could the hon. member speak to how massive, incredibly egregious and important this is, as well as how, in fact, the Liberals seem to be okay with not wanting all of this information to come to light and to be turned over unredacted?

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague describes it quite accurately. It is massive.

I come from a lifetime of municipal politics, and in municipal law and municipal government, a conflict of interest is an incredibly serious thing. People can be removed from office for a conflict of interest, because representing the people is a sacred trust and any single conflict of interest is a breach of that trust. It is a betrayal of the people who they represent, who they serve.

Imagine hundreds of conflicts of interest and a minister who appoints somebody to chair a board when he was warned not to do it because they were in conflict. The minister did not care. He broke that sacred trust.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the greatest defender of Stephen Harper is the current leader of the Conservative Party? Stephen Harper is the only prime minister in Canadian history who was held in contempt of Parliament.

Is there any wonder why the Conservative leader has a problem listening to the independent RCMP, the independent Auditor General of Canada and the former deputy clerk of the House of Commons? Is there any reason Canadians should believe that the Conservatives are doing anything more than just playing a political game, a gimmick, at great expense?

They do not have any problems walking over the charter rights of individuals, and that is the bottom line. This is more about politics for the Conservatives than it is about concern for Canadians. I say shame on the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as entertaining as the rantings of the member are, I must say that he stands in the House every single day and defends a Prime Minister who has twice been convicted of breaking ethics laws. I do not know how he can stand there with a straight face and continue to defend a corrupt government with scandal after scandal. Whether it is a spending scandal or an ethics scandal, the government thinks that it is above the law. It thinks it is above the supremacy of Parliament.

This Parliament said to hand over the papers, hand over the documents, and the member thinks he knows better, so he is going to lecture us and defend a corrupt Prime Minister who has been twice convicted of ethics scandals. That is the shame.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for those who are tuning into this debate, it is very clear to see that with the extreme issues present in the current Liberal government, like the serious mismanagement of funds at SDTC, and with the historic contempt case of the former Conservative government, these parties are consistently abusing Canadians. They are abusing Canadians' ability to get things done in the House and abusing Canadians' tax dollars. When it is politically convenient for them to call out each other's mismanagement, they do so in this place. It shouldn't have to be that way.

The New Democrats always believe in financial accountability and transparency. That is why we voted in favour of this motion. However, we cannot help but point out the direct hypocrisy we have witnessed in this debate from these two parties and their complete lack of memory when it comes to their own mismanagement.

Does the member agree that a serious debate on this issue should require reflection of one's own actions, in particular regarding the issues present not just to the Liberal government, but to that of Mr. Harper?

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is comical. It is hard to take the member seriously. He has voted consistently for four years to support the corrupt Liberal government.

He stands in here saying we are horrible; we are this and that. His leader ripped up their agreement, saying the marriage is over because the Liberals are so corrupt, so bad and so evil. However, the New Democrats still vote to support them every single time to continue the corruption. I cannot take the member seriously.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have breaking news, and it comes from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It deals, of course with the latest, $400-million, scandal facing the Liberal government. The RCMP confirms that it is investigating the $400-million scandal of the Liberal Prime Minister that has paralyzed Parliament. It also confirms that is has and is using the documents that have so far been turned over by the parliamentary law clerk.

This raises questions about why the government was willing to turn over some of the documents, yet some departments refused outright. Some departments have said they are not even a part of the government, which is an absolutely incredible statement to hear. I want to reference another bit of information about redacted records or the absence of them. The list of departments that did not comply is typed in a very small typeface on an 11-inch by 17-inch sheet of paper.

One in particular stands out: the Department of Justice. There are more than 10,000 pages they are not turning over. Why will the Prime Minister's DOJ not turn over the documents to the cops? What is so damning in them that, while the RCMP confirms they have some of the documents, the Liberals and their co-conspirators are not prepared to turn over the rest? Canadians have a right to know what is in the documents.

As a matter of fact, the Liberal government has a legal obligation to turn the documents over. It is not because I said so; it is because Canada is a democracy. A majority of democratically elected MPs used the powers that have been bestowed on the House of Commons to ensure that when a matter is of public interest, the production of papers is absolute and unrestricted.

What could be more important to the institution of Parliament and to the protection of our democracy than to make sure, in this matter involving more than 180 conflicts of interest and $400 million in a corruption scandal overseen by the Liberal Prime Minister and all the Liberals who have stood up today, especially the parliamentary secretary, who has clocked over 100 minutes in this saga that has paralyzed Parliament, that the government turns over the documents. Why will it not turn over the documents, which are so important, so Canadians can get answers?

Are we looking to be the judge, jury and executioner in this place? No, we are not. We want to turn the matter over to the RCMP. Is the RCMP going to investigate because we told it to? No, the RCMP is investigating because it has reasonable grounds to believe an offence under the Criminal Code has been committed and that it is in the public interest for it to investigate.

The RCMP will lay a charge if it believes there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. Is that why the Liberals are withholding all the documents from all the many departments? There is the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency; it is too afraid to turn over documents. Others include the Canada Revenue Agency, the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, foreign affairs, the department of housing, the Department of National Defence and Natural Resources Canada, and on and on it goes. There are 10 thousand pages from the Department of Justice alone.

We have heard this before from the Liberals with respect to the RCMP. The justice minister has said that it can get a production order, knock on the door and tell the Liberals to turn over the documents. The Liberal government and the Liberal Prime Minister, the one who has been found guilty of breaking the law twice himself, along with his public safety minister and the small business minister, broke the law.

With that as the context, when the RCMP knocked on the Prime Minister's door, in a case of a criminal matter, the Liberals said they could not turn over the documents because of cabinet confidence. This is what is going to happen; this is the game they want to play.

They want this to go to committee, they say, but why? Is it because the documents would be tabled with the committee? No, it would be to study the question of whether the documents should be tabled. The House already ordered the production of the documents, so that is done by a majority of democratically elected members, not the one party with a minority of seats in this House, shrinking returns in every election and evaporating public support. That is not who gets to decide; the majority of democratically elected members does.

That decision has been made. They must turn over the documents, because it is the law, but that does not concern these Liberals or that Attorney General, because they want this to go to committee, and they want the police to come and say, “Can you turn over those documents? You said if we brought a search warrant that you would provide them.” They will say, “We are afraid it is cabinet confidence. Here are those 10,000 pages heavily redacted.”

That is the game that they are playing with our democracy. It makes me wonder, if they are prepared to violate this law, what other laws these Liberals will break. We have seen some broken, as I said before, by the Prime Minister, by the public safety minister and by the small business minister. These Liberals, when they got tired of being found guilty for breaking Canada's Conflict of Interest Act, the laws that are supposed to protect from exactly the kind of thing that led to $400 million in corruption in this latest expense scandal, appointed the public safety minister, who had been found guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest Act in clam scam, awarding lucrative contracts to his family members.

Again, Liberal insiders are always their priority. They appointed his sister-in-law to be the Ethics Commissioner. How convenient would that be? At Thanksgiving dinner this weekend, they would say, “Nice to see you. Could you pass the stuffing? Also, could you look the other way on this latest conflict of interest affecting the Liberals?” That is what they are cooking up this Thanksgiving weekend, but the production of these documents was ordered by the House.

They, of course, want it to go to committee to bury it. The amendment and sub-amendment put forward are extremely reasonable. The list of witnesses that we would want to testify to provide fulsome answers to committee is incredibly important, but we would be faced with another problem when we get there, and we will get to a point where the House can vote for this to go to committee, once we have had the opportunity to have this debate.

However, then we are going to deal with another issue affecting the government, further paralyzing Parliament. That deals with the employment minister, this Liberal Prime Minister's minister from Edmonton, who, along with his pandemic profiteering business partner, have this unbelievable scandal that has seen a ruling from the Speaker about the rights of democratically elected members to get fulsome, honest answers and information from individuals who are sent for by this place. Again, it is a right of this House to send for people and to send for papers. In that case, the individual, the business partner of the Liberal minister from Edmonton Centre, refused to provide information on who the “other Randy” is.

We need to know that information, because it strikes at the heart of a matter that is incredibly important to Canadians. We learned that the Liberal minister from Edmonton Centre's business while he is serving in cabinet, of which he owned a 50% share, was awarded a contract by his own government. That is not okay, but what makes it worse is that the minister said he had not been in contact with his business partner for all of 2022 in particular. That year is important, because his business partner said the minister had not been in touch with him either for that year. We will take the minister at his word, and it is case closed. Unfortunately, we can trust them as far as we can throw them.

We demanded the production of papers, which is, again, one of those rights that we have, and what did we learn? They were texting and they were talking. Why is that a problem? It is a problem because what he said was not the truth. What the witness, his business partner Mr. Anderson, said was not the truth. What they told the newspaper was not the truth.

It also means a sitting member of the Liberal cabinet was directing the day-to-day business affairs of a company that was netting Government of Canada contracts worth tens of thousands of dollars, to say nothing of the fact that the service it provided was, as I said, pandemic profiteering. It was like the guys during the pandemic who would go to Costco, buy up all the toilet paper and then sell it out of their van at the end of the parking lot for an inflated price. Instead of just people in the community being the victims, it victimized people across Canada, getting contracts from all kinds of governments, with the name of a sitting cabinet minister as the co-owner of the business.

That is what they have been doing. That is the matter this House is seized with and paralyzed by. It all has to do with conflicts of interest and refusing to follow the law, orders of Parliament. If Canadians have to follow the law, why do the Liberals not have to? I get asked often by Canadians. They want to know why the RCMP will not finally investigate. Here we have a letter from the commissioner of the RCMP dated October 9. It reads, in part, “I wish to inform you that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigation into SDTC is ongoing.”

SDTC, Sustainable Development Technology Canada, operated under governments of different stripes up until 2017 with a clean bill of health from Canada's Auditor General. Stephen Harper absolutely oversaw this fund. We hear the Liberals say Conservatives do not want to take any action on environment. Here we are with this clean-tech business, with a billion dollars of Canadian tax money, looking to help start-ups and innovators in the clean-tech space. We think it is incredibly important that we solve issues facing our environment and our climate, with technology and not with a tax on everything. We know, in my province of Ontario, that is going to cost families $1,400 more than they get back in the fake, phony rebates that the Liberals talk up.

We had this fund, SDTC, which was given a clean bill of health by the Auditor General up to 2017, but it was after that when the trouble set in. The current Liberal Prime Minister appointed his choice, a Liberal, as chair of the fund. Can members guess what happened? The Liberal Prime Minister was found guilty of breaking ethics laws twice, so what do we think happened when he put his hand-picked selection in as chair? Well, along came the conflicts of interest, 186 of them, and $400 million that we know about. This is really important because the Auditor General did not look into 100% of the deals done and votes cast at the $1-billion slush fund, but of the cases they looked into, the Auditor General and her army of auditors found conflicts in 80% of them.

There is no other organization in the world that, when it finds out one of its subsidiaries is rife with corruption and alleged criminality, would say, “We are not going to turn over the documents to the RCMP; we are not going to call the cops. We are going to call a committee.” There is no other organization that would do that unless it has something to hide. What do the Liberals have to hide?

I think we know. It is all the things they do not want the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to see. They are worried that the King's cowboys are going to ride in and find all kinds of dirty deals with Liberal insiders getting rich while Canadians were lined up at food banks in record numbers.

StatsCan this week said that income inequality in this country had reached a point never seen in the history of our country since it started measuring it. It is StatsCan that said one in four Canadians do not know where their next meals are going to come from. That is really important because the unemployment rate in this country is not 25%, or one in four, so that means there are millions of Canadians going to work and, between the shift at their first job and the start of their shift at their second job, they need to make a stop at the food bank so they can afford to feed themselves and their children.

That is life after nine years of the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister. It is not that the Liberals have been spending money to help Canadians get ahead. They have been spending money to make sure Liberal insiders live large. We saw it with their $60-million arrive scam. We see it in this case with the $400 million at their green slush fund, Sustainable Development Technologies Canada. Of course, when confronted with the problem, Liberals denied it, and then they folded the organization only to pull it underneath the industry minister, who was not turning over documents to the police.

We saw it when the Prime Minister tried to reward his buddies at the WE Charity organization, Marc and Craig Kielburger. We saw it when he tried to help his friends at SNC-Lavalin with a get-out-of-jail-free card. When he was called out by the then attorney general, how did he treat Ms. Wilson-Raybould, an experienced Crown prosecutor? He fired her. He threw her under the bus. When the then health minister, an experienced physician, stood up and said what was happening was wrong, what did he do to the second woman in his caucus who spoke out against him? He threw her under the bus too.

It is because it is all about Liberal insiders, like when the Prime Minister gets a phone call from someone who is getting millions of dollars from his government and is looking for a big grant, looking for a couple million bucks, and says that they should talk about it at their island in the Bahamas, and that he should bring the president of the Liberal Party with him so they can all have a nice conversation about it together. It is a free trip for the Prime Minister, but who is picking up the tab? It is always Canadians who are stuck with the bill when it comes to the Prime Minister, who is helping Liberal insiders and his well-connected friends get ahead.

The ask is very simple: Do not break the law. It looks like the Liberals have struggled with that one. Parliament has the legal authority to order the production of these documents, which is a matter of fact. The parliamentary secretary can stand up, wave his arms and shout about it, but it is the law; it is a fact. He does not have to like it—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

You're right. I don't.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, he is saying he does not like the law. We know that about the Liberals. They break the law. They do not like the law. However, we were not elected to make him happy. We were elected to protect the interests of Canadians, who are just struggling to get by.

I have really good news at the end of what seems like a pretty depressing 20 minutes and a depressing nine years. Common-sense Conservatives have made a promise to Canadians, which is that life was not like this before the Liberal Prime Minister, and it is not going to be like that after him.

We will restore the Canadian promise of bigger paycheques, homes that people can afford in safe neighbourhoods and a comfortable retirement. That is the Canadian dream. That is the Canadian promise. It is why all of us ran for office. It is why we cannot wait for there to be a carbon tax election. Canadians deserve a choice. After nine years of taxes going up, costs going up and crime going up, now time is up. Canadians are ready for a change, and we are ready to bring it home.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member started off with breaking news about the RCMP doing an investigation. That is interesting because the Conservatives can let the RCMP do what it needs to do. Instead, they want to blur judicial independence. That is what this motion, or whatever game they are playing, is about. It is contrary to what the RCMP is recommending.

I take issue with how the member, probably more than any other Conservative member, tries to politicize things. How many times have we heard him say “Liberal-appointed chair” and that she is a Liberal and Liberal-friendly? He knows full well that she was an adviser to Brian Mulroney, Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty. She is a big donor to the Conservative Party, having donated thousands of dollars, yet he continues to say she is Liberal-friendly.

The bottom line is that we do not condone and have taken strict actions against what has taken place, with independent investigations, the freezing of funds and a replacement of the board. The only one who is being irresponsible is the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know the Liberals love to speak out of both sides of their mouth, so let me share with Canadians an article from The Globe and Mail, which the Liberals have called fake news in the past, while the Prime Minister has run down the honest reporting of his record. It is from September 11, 2019: “Ottawa blocks RCMP on SNC-Lavalin inquiry”. It says, “The RCMP has been looking into potential obstruction of justice in the handling of the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., but its examination has been stymied by the federal government's refusal to lift cabinet confidentiality for all witnesses.”

This is the game the Liberals play. There is no law they will not break and no falsehood they will not offer to cover up what we know they do best, which is help Liberal insiders get ahead. We are not going to stand for it.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was, of course, no different from what all his common-sense Conservative colleagues are telling us. I think, however, that common sense has gone out the window, because they have forgotten their history. I agree that corruption is very much part of the Liberal DNA. That said, it is also in the Conservative DNA. My colleague likes to remind people of the facts, so I am going to remind him of a few facts about his government when it was in power.

Some $50 million was embezzled in Tony Clement's riding, a former industry minister under the Conservatives. What did the Conservative Party do to reward him? They promoted him. That is rich. They reward people who embezzle funds. I would also like to remind him that, on questions of privilege like today's, the Conservative Party opposed handing over documents requested by the House. In 2009 and 2010, there was the Afghan detainee transfer scandal. In 2013, there was the Senate expenses scandal. In 2011, there was the robocalls affair. In 2012, there was the omnibus budget implementation bill, Bill C‑38.

I think that my colleague has forgotten some of the history. I have just one question for him. How can Quebeckers have confidence in a Conservative Party that has such a shameful record of scandals?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with arguments like that, it is a real shame that I do not have the opportunity to run against a Bloc Québécois member in my community, because I think Canadians would find that pretty flimsy.

The member and his party have been propping up a Liberal government that is unrivalled in its corruption. We have seen it with this $400 million scandal. How could anyone supply confidence to a Liberal government despite its $60-million arrive scam? How could anyone in good conscience do that when people in the province of Quebec, as in every province and territory in our federation, have been suffering and are lined up at food banks? The lines at the food banks in Quebec are no shorter.

It is a real shame, because there is an opportunity to have a carbon tax election. There is an opportunity to remove confidence from the government. However, it is up to the member to decide with his caucus whether they are going to continue to support a government that certainly has not been supporting people in my community, my province or my country, which includes Quebec.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the commentary from the member for Winnipeg North, who repeatedly said that Conservatives are abusing power. I find that very illuminating in terms of the Liberal mindset on this. They believe that our holding the government accountable and exercising the most ancient parliamentary privilege, which is to call for persons, papers and things, is an abuse of power. I would charge that they are abusing power by defying the order from the House and yourself, Mr. Speaker. Could the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes comment with his thoughts on that?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul, who does a tremendous job representing her constituents. It is no wonder they sent her to this place, because she hit the nail right on the head.

This is an absolute abuse of power by the government, but that has been the hallmark of the Liberal Prime Minister. He has been staunchly defended by the parliamentary secretary, the member for Winnipeg North, against the interests of his constituents and all Canadians. This is when we see that, in the interest of supporting their friends, they refuse to follow the law.

In the example I gave earlier about SNC-Lavalin, the Prime Minister cooked up a phony story about trying to save jobs. He was really just trying to save his buddies, who were giving him big donations. In fact, he obstructed a criminal investigation and obstructed an investigation into his obstruction of justice. That shows us what an abuse of power is, and it has been perpetrated on Canadians by the Liberal Prime Minister and his Liberal members for far too long.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not only me, the member for Winnipeg North, who is saying “abuse of power”. The former law clerk of Parliament did so. He is from an independent institution and is not partisan, and he said, “it is an abuse of its powers for the House to use its powers to demand and get documents from the Government in order to transfer them to a third party (RCMP) that wouldn't otherwise receive them or to compel the government to give documents to the third party.”

It is this individual who is saying that the Conservatives are abusing power. How do they defend that?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have great news, which is that the current parliamentary law clerk has affirmed for Canadians that Parliament continues to have the unfettered right to send for persons and papers. This is in spite of a Liberal government and a Liberal Prime Minister wanting to trample on the rights of democratically elected members to represent them, to stop the corruption being perpetrated on them. Of course, Mr. Speaker, you know that, because your ruling that the order for the production of documents was valid was informed by the expertise of the current parliamentary law clerk.

Therefore, the member opposite can find whatever straw men he wants to prop up in a field, but we have an institution with a parliamentary law clerk who has asserted that the right remains intact, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are investigating their corruption. It is about time they came out with their hands up.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy coming from the other side is mind-blowing.

The member started off by talking about breaking news with the RCMP. The Liberals have asserted throughout the whole debate that the RCMP wants nothing to do with this. The member across the way then said, “Well, listen, if only the Conservatives weren't doing what they're doing, the RCMP could do their job.” Is he kidding me? The hypocrisy and the talking points are changing on the fly.

Could the member wrap up and just highlight some more of the hypocrisy coming from the Liberals?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great question from the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George, and it is great to see him. He raises a great point. It is hypocrisy from the Liberals. The RCMP is investigating their corruption. After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canadians have had enough. It is time for a carbon tax election.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise and speak in this chamber, but not happy about the occasion. We are talking about yet another example of the culture of secrecy that has penetrated the government. It was baked in right from the start and that is the shame of it. Many Canadians are old enough to remember the 2015 election campaign. The government promised to be the most open and transparent government in Canadian history, and the shame of this is how it has flagrantly broken that promise every day of this Parliament. This is a government that is reflexively secretive in all things and scandal-prone from the start.

Going back to the Liberals' promise of openness and transparency to set part of the stage here, this is a government that passed an access to information law after it was first elected, which the Information Commissioner said was a step backward in access to information. The Liberals promised. They succeeded in that 2015 election. They figured out how to eat the NDP's lunch and how to go after traditional NDP supporters. Many members of the NDP, to their credit, have long spoken about openness and transparency, and they had criticized access to information over the decades in Canada. That was one of the promises where the Liberals zeroed in on a group of voters, promised them what they wanted to hear and then broke the promise. This attitude of reflexive and instinctive secrecy governs every bit of conduct of the government. We have seen it time and time again. The government is a scandal-plagued government that has no regard for our laws around ethics and around access to information.

Early on in the government, let us not forget that the Prime Minister broke the law and accepted an illegal vacation. That was one of the first things he did. He became the first Prime Minister to be found to contravene the Conflict of Interest Act. This is the type of scandal we see from the government over and over again. There was the India trip wherein the government sent an invitation to a man convicted of terrorism, convicted of the attempted murder of an India cabinet minister and who assaulted a former premier of British Columbia and member of this Parliament. That is the company the government keeps.

We saw early in the 42nd Parliament, the SNC-Lavalin scandal wherein the Prime Minister brought in a new law by sneaking it into a budget implementation bill. I was at the finance committee. Mr. Speaker, you where there too, I recall. The government snuck a deferred prosecution law into a budget implementation act. At the finance committee, we scratched our heads and wondered what that was doing in a budget implementation act. Even you, Mr. Speaker, and other Liberals around the table were wondering about this.

It was implemented into law and it became pretty clear pretty quickly why that deferred prosecution law was brought in. It was brought in to get a corrupt company off the hook in furtherance of the interests, in his own words, of the member for Papineau, who said this was why it was essential that this corrupt company be granted a deferred prosecution, something hand-delivered to that company for that purpose by the government in a budget implementation act. What we saw from that was a fallout that resulted in cabinet resignation, caucus expulsions and the retirement of the chief clerk of the Privy Council.

It is to the credit of Jody Wilson-Raybould, who stood up to the government and said that this kind of greasy corruption would not be allowed to stand, that she would not allow the Prime Minister and his office to interfere in a criminal prosecution. She was fired as minister of justice, shuffled, then dumped and expelled from the Liberal caucus.

We have a government where the then-fisheries minister tried to give a lucrative clam fishing licence, to a relative. I thank my friend behind me, the member for Cariboo—Prince George, for bringing that to light.

This was all in the 42nd Parliament. This was right from the beginning. We came back into the 43rd Parliament, with much reduced numbers on the other side, in no small part to this kind of dishonest conduct, and what did they do? They picked up right where they left off and handed half a billion dollars over to a friendly but ultimately discredited charity, the WE scandal, where the conflicts of interest of the then-finance minister Bill Morneau and his ties to that organization ultimately led to his resignation. We saw the Winnipeg lab scandal emerge in the 43rd Parliament, where Parliament found the government in contempt over its refusal to table documents for which the production was ordered by the House, by elected members of Parliament who have the right, under the Constitution of Canada.

We have the charter, which guarantees the democratic rights of Canadians, and the Constitution of Canada, which declares that this is the supreme inquisitor for Canadians, that members of Parliament have the right to documents and to compel witnesses in furtherance of holding the Crown and the government to account for Canadians.

There was the refusal to table in the House documents dealing with the espionage that had occurred in a top secret laboratory. We had to order the chief of that agency to the bar to be admonished by the Speaker but the Liberals make sure that they help their own. That member, after being admonished by the House, was shuffled off and given a high-paying job with another agency. That is how accountability works with the government.

We had another election. These guys squeaked their way back in and no sooner did that happen than we had the pandemic. Toward the tail end of the pandemic, they trotted out the ArriveCAN app, an application that did not work and that sent thousands of Canadians to quarantine unnecessarily and in error. We found out that a couple of middlemen made off with millions of dollars. When the parliamentary investigation revealed this, again, the Liberal insiders who were getting rich off this refused to answer questions and had to be brought to the bar again. These were unprecedented steps that had not been resorted to in decades but under the level of corruption of the government, the necessity to obtain information to get to the bottom of scandal after scandal leads us to where we are today.

We are at the point, today, where we have the current SDTC crisis, where we have $400 million that has gone out into the pockets of Liberal insiders and questions that remain unanswered, documents that, again, have been ordered by the House. The House voted for the production of these documents. This is not something that Conservatives have just dreamed up.

This is the House of Commons, where the Conservatives have 121 seats. We do not have enough votes to do this as an act of partisanship. This is what the majority of the House of Commons wants, including members of all parties, except for the Liberals, who, in furtherance of their culture of secrecy, continue to withhold documents. That is why we are seized with this.

Liberals say, “If the Conservatives let us kick this over to committee, we could carry on with the business of government.” However, Canadians want a carbon tax election. That is what we want. We need to settle the issue of getting the documents now, and then we can move on to other matters.

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

Having reached the expiry of the time provided for today's debate, the House will resume consideration of the privilege motion at 11 a.m. on Monday, October 21. Pursuant to Standing Order 94, I wish to inform hon. members that Private Members' Business will be suspended on that day.

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, October 21, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

Again, I would like to wish all members a happy Thanksgiving with their loved ones and their constituents.

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)