Debates of Oct. 21st, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously he did not listen to my speech this morning, where I actually expanded on the topic of the nature of the debate quite extensively. He is also taking enormous liberty with what I said on the record. He can maybe go back to Hansard and look at what I actually said, if he would like.

The point is that there is a choice between sending the motion to committee to study the issue of the government's contempt of Parliament, and the Liberals' just ending their contempt of Parliament and tabling the documents. Indeed if members, who are elected to this place, want to debate this, as he is doing, then they are welcome to do so. When that debate is exhausted, we will go to committee unless they table the documents.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not have to listen to his speech this morning, because I have listened to the same speech over and over, written by the same person somewhere in a basement, operating on behalf of the Conservative Party. However, I do want to thank the member for just doubling down on what I already called him out on. He basically just said it again: We are debating this only because we just have to debate this and it would just go away if the Liberals would actually deliver on what we are requesting of them. That is what he just said.

By his own admission, not once but twice now, he is doing exactly what we are accusing him of doing, which is intentionally filibustering this place, preventing us from doing any work whatsoever. This is just so the Conservatives can keep up the charade of trying to make it look like they are doing something meaningful, when really they have an ulterior motive: to completely put this place in a position of being unable to get anything done.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that the original motion states that the issue should go to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The RCMP, the Auditor General of Canada and other stakeholders have said that the tactic the Conservatives are using is wrong; it is questionable and it should not be done. It is an abuse of power. All of that is what is being implied.

The Conservatives moved the motion to have it go to committee, then when they ran out of speakers, they moved an amendment, and now we are speaking to an amendment to an amendment. Why is that? It is because of what the member is actually talking about: The Conservatives have not put the interest of Canadians in their hearts. What they have put in their hearts is just the Conservative Party of Canada and nothing else.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. I heard Conservatives say today that when there is a problem, we call in the police. Yes, of course we call in the police, but we let the police do their own work. I ask the former prosecutors who are sitting in the House right now whether it is the job of the public to do the work for the police. Is it the job of the House to do the work for the RCMP? No, of course it is not.

The RCMP has the tools necessary to get the information it wants. When and if the RCMP decides it wants that information, it will know how to get it. The RCMP does not need the House to somehow inform it how to get evidence or what evidence it should be getting. What the Conservatives need to do is listen to the RCMP, to the Speaker's ruling and to just about every expert on this who has said that there is a constitutional way to do this that involves the RCMP's actually doing its work. We do not need to step outside the Constitution for the RCMP to be effective at what it is doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, we will just let the record show that the member believes that if other members of the House of Commons, who have been elected, wish to debate the motion, there is something horribly wrong with that and that the members should be silenced in order for the issue to be dealt with before debate has been exhausted.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know it has really stung when the member has had to get up three times to debate me on this.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to track back on the point about how the RCMP gathers evidence, particularly the issue of the tainting of evidence and the issue that if in fact the Conservatives have their way the prosecution of the entire case will be compromised—

[Frank Caputo]

How? How?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is because the evidence will have been obtained in an improper fashion.

A simple legal procedure that does not seem to be understood by the other side is that if the Conservatives proceed in the fashion that they intend to, then the entire prosecution, if there is one, will be compromised.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I find most alarming about what I just heard was the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, a former prosecutor, heckling “How? How?” when the member from Scarborough was trying inform people about why there might be improperly gathered evidence.

He is absolutely correct, but we do not need to take this from the member from Scarborough or from myself. Listen to the RCMP, which is saying that. Listen to the Speaker's ruling, which is saying that. Listen to the countless experts who are saying the exact same thing, which is that the RCMP has an opportunity to get the information, that it knows how to collect evidence and that it does not need Parliament telling it how to collect evidence or what evidence it should be gathering.

The RCMP is very capable of doing its job. It knows what to do and how to do it. It is very effective at it. The RCMP certainly does not need the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge or the entire Conservative caucus leading the investigation for it. The RCMP knows what it is doing, and I have great confidence in the RCMP. I would hope my Conservative colleagues would feel the same way.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I am really glad to see that the member for Kingston and the Islands has really got his gusto back after his two-week hiatus, given the whole Kat Kanada thing.

Be that as it may, I am wondering whether he could tell us what charter rights are engaged. Given that he has come in to this place and told us how the law works, I am curious what charter rights are engaged and how they would impact a potential prosecution. I would like him, please, to give just the charter section numbers.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the problem with Conservatives. This is what they are continually doing. I do not have to—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order.

I will let the hon. deputy House leader respond.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have to cite specific charter references to be able to agree with you. Do I know the exact numbers? Of course I do not, but what I have been doing is listening to the RCMP, listening to and reading the Speaker's ruling and listening to the experts who have very clearly said this.

I apologize profusely to the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo that I just do not believe him and that I would rather take the word of the RCMP, would rather listen to the experts and would rather listen to you, Mr. Speaker, and the countless pieces of legal advice you received in making a ruling.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the member for Kingston and the Islands would recognize he is just totally off the mark. He is huffing and puffing and trying to blame the Conservatives, when really it is the Speaker's ruling that is saying that the documents need to be produced.

My question is this: Are the Liberals planning to take the Speaker to court, as they did previously to the other Speaker who ruled against them?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is your ruling, and what you said in your ruling was that this was unprecedented but that you agreed that it should go to PROC, which should be allowed to determine the best way to deal with it. I love how the member cherry-picks the sentences or half sentences that he wants to use in here today, but the reality is that for him to come in here and say it is the Speaker's ruling and they are just listening to him is completely ludicrous, because what they are actually doing is ignoring the majority of the direction you have given in your ruling.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place and speak on behalf of the constituents of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner. Unfortunately, rather than speaking about something fantastic that the government may be doing to better Canadians, we are here to discuss yet another scandal. That is right, another Liberal scandal: more corruption regarding the gross misappropriation of taxpayer funds, with a typical Liberal response of “Cover it up. Nothing to see here”. That is what we are doing.

I know that with all the Liberal scandals that have been going on, it is hard to keep track of everything, so let me clarify that what I want to talk about today are the Auditor General's findings that Liberal insiders at Sustainable Development Technology Canada, SDTC, or as I would refer to it, the green slush fund, gave nearly $400 million in tax dollars to their own companies with over 186 conflicts of interests, all at a time when Canadians cannot afford to eat, heat or house themselves. SDTC was a federal foundation that was supposed to support small and medium-sized businesses in the clean-tech sector by funding projects that were to develop technology that benefits the environment. The members of the Liberal-appointed board violated conflict of interest laws and turned it into a green slush fund for the Liberal elites.

On June 10, a Conservative motion was adopted by the House, calling for all documents relating to the green slush fund to be tabled within 30 days and eventually turned over to the RCMP. Thankfully, the motion was passed, despite the Liberals voting against it. That was another desperate attempt to cover-up. The Liberals responded to this motion on July 17, August 21 and September 16, but there were only portions tabled. There was partial disclosure due to either redactions or the withholding of documents. In other instances, the House order was met with a complete refusal by those departments.

According to the Speaker's ruling, the law clerk reported back to the Speaker that the Liberals had not complied with the House order by the stipulated deadline of 30 days following the adoption of the motion. In response to the Liberals' refusal to disclose documents, the House leader for our Conservative opposition raised the question of privilege, arguing that Parliament's powers to order the production of documents are absolute and the government cannot disregard this binding order.

As parliamentarians, we have a right to ask for any documents to be produced that are necessary for us to fulfill our duties to Canadians. Therefore, on September 26, the Speaker ruled that the Liberals' failure to produce documents relating to the green slush fund scandal constituted a prima facie breach of privilege. As such, all debates are suspended until this matter is resolved. That is going on four weeks now. If parliamentarians do not have the rights and freedoms necessary to do their jobs, Parliament is paralyzed, as it is now, but the Liberal government seems to be okay with wasting taxpayers' money and government's time.

The Speaker ruled that “The House has the undoubted right to order the production of any...documents from any entity or individual it deems necessary to carry out its duties”. In his ruling, he further stated that “The House has clearly ordered the production of certain documents, and that order has clearly not been fully complied with.”

In yet another attempt to obstruct the investigation, the Liberals have made the argument that since this motion calls for documents to be turned over to the RCMP, the motion would be inadmissible or out of order. However, the Speaker ruled that he did agree that “It is indeed unusual, novel and unprecedented for the House to order documents not for its own purposes but for a third party.” However, the Speaker also added that “I believe the best way for this to be achieved would be to follow the usual course for a prima facie question of privilege”. I would also argue that what is unusual and unprecedented is for the RCMP to have to be investigating a government over and over again with so many conflicts and absolute corruption.

For a government that claims to not be responsible for this scandal to then go to such lengths to try and cover it up instead of fighting on behalf of Canadians to get the truth out makes no sense to me. If the Liberals had nothing to do with this $400-million scandal, they should be as concerned as the rest of us about this gross corruption and theft of taxpayer money. One would think that a responsible government would take the lead on holding those responsible to be accountable for their actions and not be forced into responding appropriately. Liberals insiders have stolen $400 million from hard-working Canadian taxpayers, yet this Liberal government is doing everything in its power to prevent the House from gaining access to those documents.

In response to our demands that they give Canadians the answers they deserve, the Liberals have flat out refused, obstructing a criminal investigation into this misappropriation of public funds. The Liberals claim that this matter should be discussed in committee, because they think that nobody there will notice. However, I do not agree with that. The House has already passed a motion and the Speaker has made his ruling. The House is the place for the matter to be resolved, not at committee. This brings us to the privilege motion in front of us today.

Parliamentary privilege is the individual and collective rights that we, as members of the House of Commons, have that allow us to effectively carry out our principle functions to legislate, deliberate and hold the government to account. Parliamentary privilege dates back to the 17th century when the people of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom fought to protect their power from the king. In Canada, parliamentary privilege is part of our Constitution. It is essential for maintaining the power and authority of the House in allowing members of Parliament to represent their constituents fully. It is called “democracy”.

Violating parliamentary privilege is no small thing. It means that the government cannot govern and the House cannot fulfill its duties to the Canadians we represent. When parliamentary privilege is breached, our constitutionally guaranteed rights as parliamentarians are disregarded.

We are left to wonder what could be so bad about what is contained in these documents that the Liberals have resorted to breaking parliamentary privilege and obstructing a criminal investigation to keep them hidden. I think Canadians know why. They know that these documents contain evidence of significant corruption. So far, we know that the report showed $400 million in tax dollars was misappropriated and there were 186 instances of conflicts of interest with the awarding of contracts.

Further, for a fund dedicated to supporting the development of new sustainable technology, $59 million of this green slush fund went to 10 ineligible projects. As the Auditor General said, “the projects did not support the development or demonstration of a new technology, or their projected environmental benefits were unreasonable.” Not only were funds misappropriated to Liberal insiders, they were given to projects that were not even relevant to the goals of the fund.

Even more shocking is that the Auditor General's report found that the Minister of Industry did not sufficiently monitor any contracts from Liberal insiders. Why is no one in the government doing anything to get to the bottom of this gross misuse of taxpayer money? What makes this all so much worse is that the $400-million slush fund scandal comes at a time when Canadians face an economic crisis. Canadians are feeling the financial impacts of the government's policies over the last nine years. Not shockingly, the Liberals do not seem to care.

When I think of my riding of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, it pains me to think of the hard-working Albertans who are struggling with the cost of living crisis under the tax-and-spend Liberals. If we then add the carbon tax the government has implemented, it adds to my constituents' struggle to fill their gas tanks; heat their homes, businesses and barns; dry their grain; buy groceries and so much more.

Let us imagine how much the $400 million would impact the lives of Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet under this economic burden. How many additional doctors and nurses, or equipment, could we add with $400 million to help Canadians access health care? How about our school systems? How would $400 million invested in our communities impact the number of teachers, teachers' aides and school programs for our children?

The average Canadian family now spends more of its income on taxes than on basic needs, such as food, shelter and clothing. Canadians also cannot afford housing. In 2024, the number of chronically homeless people increased by 38% relative to 2018. We have 61% of young Canadians age 18 to 34 who are concerned about their ability to pay their mortgage or rent over the next 12 months, and 28% say they are considering moving to another country for greater affordability.

It is shocking that during a time when Canadians are experiencing a once-in-a-generation cost of living crisis because of the out-of-touch government spending, the Liberals dare to allow $400 million of taxpayer money to line the pockets of their friends and insiders. They are absolutely out of touch.

It does not stop there. The affordability crisis is affecting Canadians in every aspect of their lives. Food Banks Canada's 2024 Poverty Report Card shows that almost 50% of Canadians feel financially worse off compared to last year, and one in four Canadians are experiencing food insecurity. Under the Liberal government, Food Banks Canada reported that food banks have seen a 50% increase in visits since 2021.

It is shameful that while Canadians are struggling to meet their basic food and housing needs, the government's priority continues to be lining the pockets of Liberal elites. The $400-million green slush fund scandal, along with all the other scandals, demonstrates the Liberals have no respect for the hard-working Canadians who dutifully pay their taxes every year.

I have questions for the members present on the other side of the House. How do they respond to their constituents who are facing challenges in feeding their families, keeping their homes or ensuring their loved ones' safety? How would they explain to their constituents that the $400 million they earned benefited the Liberals' friends, instead of assisting those in need? Can members look their constituents in the eye and assert that the $400 million was spent more wisely than if it had been spent on the constituents who earned it and are currently struggling?

The members on the other side of the House have overlooked the fact that we serve the Canadian public and that taxpayer funds do not belong to the government. These funds are the property of Canadians. It is unimaginable, unethical and corrupt to use Canadian taxpayer dollars in this manner and then fail to acknowledge that these funds have been misappropriated. On top of that, the Liberals are actively trying to cover it up. They are obstructing a criminal investigation into this matter.

I want all members of this House to imagine what $400 million could do in their riding. Unfortunately for Canadians, on top on the misappropriation of $400 million, the Liberals are stalling the work of this House on important issues by refusing to co-operate and they are effectively paralyzing Parliament, sidelining our efforts to tackle the rising cost of housing, food inflation and issues of crime that Canadians care about.

Speaking of crime, in Alberta alone, the total number of violent Criminal Code violations is up 37%; total violent firearms offences are up 118%, and extortion is up 410%. Law enforcement, from coast to coast to coast, is crying for support. Law enforcement officers feel the impacts of the government's soft-on-crime policies first-hand. Whenever I check the news, I am appalled to see stories of individuals out on bail who are recommitting offences, making our communities less safe and putting our law enforcement officers at risk. Speaking of risk, an officer was shot in broad daylight in the GTA by an offender charged with 41 offences; hours previously, after being taken into custody, he was released on bail.

The $400 million that was given to Liberal insiders could have been invested in making our streets safer, but no, the Liberals thought it was better spent on their friends. Canadians are worried about increased thefts and crime rates. They should not have to worry about their government stealing from them too.

There is also a drug crisis across the entire country. There are 47,000 people who have died from opioid-related deaths in the last nine years. That is more deaths from opioids alone than all Canadian deaths in the Second World War. If we think about it, that is inconceivable. That is all thanks to the Liberals' failed approach to the so-called safe supply and tax-funded drugs. Can members imagine how much good $400 million could do for treating those with mental health and addictions struggles?

In addition to the issues faced at home, the Prime Minister and his Liberal government have embarrassed Canadians on the world stage. Three months ago, the Liberal defence policy update revealed that Canada is nowhere close to its 2% NATO commitments. That hardly comes as a surprise from a government that has repeatedly failed the Canadian Armed Forces in recruitment, procurement and every other way. We are short almost 16,000 troops, with a further 10,000 undertrained and undeployable. Our warships are rusting out. Our fighter jets are worn out. Entire air squadrons have been shut down because they do not have enough personnel. If the government had been serious about our national defence, it could have committed the $400 million to support our troops and come a little closer to meeting our NATO goals.

I really wonder what the NDP-Liberals have done right in the last nine years. Things are clear. Crime is up and costs are up; quite frankly, I think time is up. Canadians are sick of the rising costs of crime, chaos, corruption and international embarrassments. They are ready for a change, for a government that will bring common-sense leadership back to this country.

On this side of the House, we are ready to form a government that will work for Canadians, not steal from them. We will reduce the cost of living and reward work and investment. Conservatives are ready to fix the budget by cutting waste, capping spending, investing in economic growth and cutting taxes. We will reduce bureaucracy, sell off federal buildings and invest in the building trades so that we can build homes. We will repeal senseless, soft-on-crime policies and catch-and-release laws, reinforce our borders, stand up for law-abiding firearms owners, focus on the real criminals and improve our national security. When we form government, we will ensure accountability and transparency. Canadians deserve to know where and how taxpayer money is being spent.

These matters involving the green slush fund are criminal, and an investigation is needed and expected by Canadians. The government needs to come clean with Canadians and finally reveal the truth. It is time for the government to end the cover-up and corruption and provide the documents, so Parliament can get working for Canadians.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my comments to my friend, who is a former RCMP officer. In particular, I want to direct his attention to a letter by Mike Duheme, the RCMP commissioner. I am going to work on the assumption that, as a police officer and a member of this chamber, he wishes to see justice, with the perpetrators of this alleged crime brought to court and successfully prosecuted. However, Commissioner Duheme indicates in his letter that proceeding in the manner in which the hon. member wishes would taint the evidence and effectively destroy whatever possibility there is of obtaining a prosecution.

He stated:

The RCMP has also reviewed the implications of the Motion in a potential criminal investigation. Before taking any investigative steps...the RCMP must comply with...legal standards [of] investigation or prosecution.... For the reasons set out above, the RCMP's ability to receive and use information obtained through this production order and under the compulsory powers afforded by the Auditor General Act…give rise to concerns under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is therefore highly unlikely that any information obtained by the RCMP under the Motion where privacy interests [exist] could be used to support a criminal prosecution or further a criminal investigation.

In other words, if this motion proceeds in the way the hon. member wishes it to do, there is no chance—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while I have a lot of respect for Commissioner Duheme, it appears that the response was actually read by a lawyer in the PMO.

It is very easy to understand. One would think that the Government of Canada should be the complainant because of the fact that $400 million was misappropriated under its watch.

I was not in the RCMP; I was in a municipal police service, a great one. When I did investigations, a complainant turned over documents to the police to investigate. The government is not acting like a complainant in this matter. It is acting like an accused. That is what is really going on here.

The government has reason to be concerned about the evidence being gathered if it is the accused. The fact that it is not turning stuff over—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, he asked a question for almost two minutes, so I am going to take some time to answer.

The government has a responsibility to turn over evidence. If it is acting as the accused, the police could get an order to obtain the evidence from the House of Commons. That is not unreasonable. That, in my opinion, would taint no one's charter. It would not taint an investigation. It would not lead to an illegal precedent that would not allow someone to have a fair prosecution of a case, unless, of course, it is the government and members in the government who are at fault.

If the documents continue to be withheld, it would lead me to believe that there is someone in government who has a lot to hide, and they had better get themselves a good lawyer.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this Conservative filibuster is trying to figure out who is more scandalous, the Liberals or the Conservatives, and I would argue both.

I also want some answers. My hon. colleague was a former RCMP member. The RCMP reported that it obtained evidence that demonstrates four very serious issues in regard to India. I am going to read them verbatim:

1. Violent extremism impacting both countries;

2. Links tying agents of the Government of India (GOI) to homicides and violent acts;

3. The use of organized crime to create a perception of an unsafe environment targeting the South Asian Community in Canada; and

4. Interference into democratic processes.

We are talking about justice, and we are talking about getting to the root of things. It brings us to this question: Why will the leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Carleton, not get his security clearance to find out who in his party has been implicated, potentially, in foreign interference? Why?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a number of things come up with this particular issue.

It is important to realize this: It has been made very clear that, if the Leader of the Opposition or a leader of any party, other than the Prime Minister in his role, receives this security clearance to have access to the names of those who might be wittingly involved in foreign interference, they are gagged. It is effectively impossible for them to answer questions or to deal with it.

I will quote the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, who said, “The recipient is prevented from using the information in any manner, even were it in the case of briefing political parties on sensitive intelligence regarding [an] MP”. This “could put the leader or representative of a political party in a tough position because any decision affecting the MP might have to be made without giving them due process.”

It is important to realize all of these accusations. The Prime Minister grandstanded under oath at the Hogue commission and misled the committee in public. If he has all this information, why does he not release the names? If there are Conservatives on the list, we will deal with it. I think the Prime Minister knows by the names that his own party has some skeletons in the closet.

I support the Conservative leader not taking this, because he can then act and speak. Being gagged is another trick that the government does not want Canadians to be aware of.