Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is missing the entire point. If the government produces the documents, then we can move ahead.

However, the member seems to misinterpret what the strategy is. I enjoy my colleagues' speeches, but this is not a strategy. These are the rights of parliamentarians. We voted to have these documents brought to us, and that is a right of Parliament. Each and every one of our rights seems to be challenged by the government. We have to say, “When is it going to stop?”

I realize that the Bloc has voted for the government to keep them in power, but enough is enough. In my riding, people are sick and tired. I would welcome the Bloc members to take a stance because I think one of the best strategies for Canada and Quebec would be to change and get rid of this corrupt Liberal government.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague touched on a number of fairly important issues that are also impacted by what the government is trying to do in withholding documents from the House of Commons. This is a matter, as he and the government know, of parliamentary supremacy in what we get to see. I will remind the government again that Parliament has the right to demand documents and that the Speaker has ruled that those documents are due.

Does my colleague still believe that Parliament has relevance, or does he agree with the Liberals that at the end of the day, this is just a little hurdle to get past so they can do what they want and shovel money out of their pockets to their friends?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brings an extremely important point forward. He says that it is our right, but I would argue with him, and I hate to argue with him because he is a great debater, that it is not just a right; it is an obligation.

I am from a community in Oshawa that is suffering right now. My community is wondering where the money is going. This green slush fund, remember, was supposed to be for greening Canada and making improvements to our environment. However, what we are seeing is literally millions of dollars going to Liberal-friendly elites. I could go on and on, and that is why I am not happy to be here tonight debating this. I have been here for 20 years, and our rights and privileges have to be protected.

The government has no respect for Parliament. The Prime Minister has no respect for the rules and no respect for the ethics that are supposed to be upheld in this sacred House. I am afraid that Canadians are losing confidence in our institutions, whether that is our government, our judicial system or our bureaucracies, and that is the danger we are in if we continue to support this corruption.

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

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with a whole lot of what the member is saying. When I think of corruptness, all I needs to do is take a look at the most corrupt prime minister, Stephen Harper. The parliamentary secretary to Stephen Harper is the Conservatives' current leader. The pattern of behaviour we have seen since Stephen Harper continues to live on in the current leader. That is the reason he refuses to get a security clearance. I think Canadians have a right to know why that is. Is there something in his past that will not allow him to get a security clearance? The leaders of the New Democrats, the Bloc and the Green Party, all of us, have it but not the leader of the Conservative Party.

How does the member opposite or any Conservative defend a leader who refuses to consider the national interests of Canada and does not get a security clearance?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad the member asked me that because it shows how out of touch these Liberal elites are.

The Prime Minister put in a process where he is giving briefings to friends who have supported his corrupt government over the years. Our leader has taken a principled approach.

This member, who is heckling me, believes that only the elites of the Liberal Party or government leaders need to know which MPs are conflicted and being accused of foreign government interference. Our leader believes that all Canadians have that right. We are going to an election. Would they not like to know if the person they are voting for had a problem with government interference? Would they not like to know before they cast a vote?

The government and the member have been protecting members who may be compromised. Our leader wants to say no and to end the elitism. We want to allow all Canadians to know who those MPs are. If the Liberals just release the names, Canadians will know who to vote for in the next election. I think it is going to be pretty clear.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in his letter to Canadians in 2015, the Prime Minister, famously promised the following: “It is time for leadership that never seeks to divide Canadians, but takes every single opportunity to bring us together”. That is a mistruth. He said, “we committed to a responsible, transparent fiscal plan for challenging economic times.” That is another mistruth. He said, “Canadians need to have faith in their government’s honesty and willingness to listen.” That is another mistruth.

The Prime Minister said:

Government and its information must be open by default. Simply put, it is time to shine more light on government....

But in order for you to trust your government, you need a government that will trust you. When we make a mistake—as all governments do—it is important that we acknowledge that mistake and learn from it.

He said, “To close, I am committed to leading an open, honest government that is accountable to Canadians, lives up to the highest ethical standards, brings our country together, and applies the utmost care and prudence in the handling of public funds.” The final phrase of that letter to Canadians is “We will not let you down.”

The Prime Minister has reneged on all of those promises. He is a failed leader. He has abused the trust put in him. The failed, corrupt government has literally been embroiled in scandal after scandal for the last nine years, and here we go again talking about another scandal, this time the green slush fund.

As a result, the House of Commons has been at a standstill for 13 days now due to the government's refusal to hand over documents. Over the past weeks, we have engaged in countless debates regarding the privilege motion. I can only assume that Canadians have been bombarded with a barrage of differing views and misleading narratives surrounding the government's green slush fund. Given that the parliamentary press gallery often shies away from highlighting Liberal corruption, I want to lay out the facts clearly and simply for the people who are watching.

It all began with SDTC in 2017. SDTC was supposed to provide funding to companies with innovative and legitimate ideas aimed at improving Canada's environmental record. The government funnelled a staggering one billion tax dollars into SDTC.

However, the Liberals appointed their friends to the board of SDTC, including the chair. The board was responsible for deciding who received funds. What did the board members do when they convened? They chose to redirect the money back to their own companies. There was a shocking $400 million spent not on enhancing environmental outcomes but rather on enriching Liberal insiders.

In addition, a further $58 million was granted to 10 projects that were entirely ineligible and could not even demonstrate any environmental benefits or the utilization of green technology. The Ethics Commissioner determined that the chair of the board broke the law twice by funnelling money to her own company.

How do we know all of this? A brave whistle-blower stepped forward and testified at committee, exposing this damning and explosive scandal. They said, “What should have been a straightforward process turned into a bureaucratic nightmare that allowed SDTC to continue wasting millions of dollars and abusing countless employees over the last year.” Further, they also expressed that they believed that “the...government is more interested in protecting themselves and protecting the situation from being a public nightmare.”

Instead of the Prime Minister's upholding his mandate of running an open, honest and transparent government, he and his Liberal colleagues are paralyzing Parliament by refusing to release all unredacted documents and evidence related to the green slush fund. This is not just a matter of ethics; it is also about the integrity of our democratic institutions. Canadians deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent and who is benefiting from the decisions.

This refusal to hand over documents can only mean that what they are hiding is far worse than we can imagine. Which particular cabinet minister are they trying to protect from criminal liability? Just how damning are these documents, that they would stall Parliament for 13 days and defy the order of the Speaker just to conceal the $400 million they handed to their friends? Clearly, what they are trying to conceal is prioritized above the very productivity of Parliament itself.

The government House leader and several other Liberal champions of corruption like to defend and deflect their failure to comply with the Speaker's order to release documents by saying Conservatives are somehow trampling upon charter rights. This is a blatant attempt to shift focus away from the Liberals' reckless spending and corruption, a far too common tactic for this government.

One would think the Liberals would know what it means to attack charter rights, as their unprecedented use of the Emergencies Act allowed them to freeze bank accounts without court orders, authorize broad police powers and restrict peaceful assembly. Even civil liberties organizations and former judges at that time raised alarm bells, saying there was no justification for such extreme measures. Then we had Justice Mosley in the Federal Court of Appeal, who pronounced that the government had essentially breached a number of charter rights.

Why should Conservatives heed the Liberals' advice on respecting the charter? They only uphold it when it aligns with their political agenda. Their track record reveals a blatant disregard for the very rights they now claim to champion, all to deflect responsibility for their misuse of taxpayer funds.

When it comes to protecting individual freedoms, Conservatives lead with principles, while Liberals pick and choose when it benefits their agenda. The invocation of the Emergencies Act was not about protecting Canadians; it was about silencing criticism and crushing opposition. The same applies now as we demand accountability for the green slush fund.

The Liberals are raising concerns that the Speaker's House order could infringe on charter rights, especially regarding police investigations and privacy, but let us be clear: It is the Liberals who are abusing their power by refusing to comply with an order of this House.

They claim we are violating, specifically, section 8 of the charter, which protects privacy from unreasonable search and seizure. However, the truth is there is little to no expectation of privacy in these documents. They were created by public servants spending taxpayer money. They belong to the public. Furthermore, the House order does not force the RCMP to take any specific action on the documents. Law enforcement can choose to disregard them if it sees fit. However, if the RCMP finds evidence of potential criminality, it must pause its review and obtain judicial authorization to continue. This process protects against any claims of a charter breach.

The charter is there to protect people from the government, not to protect the government from accountability. What we are witnessing is a clear attempt by the Liberals to dodge accountability for their actions concerning SDTC and taxpayer funds.

As Conservatives, we are committed to transparency. Canadians deserve to know how their money is being spent. We will always stand against overreach and demand accountability from the government. Pursuing transparency is not an infringement of rights; it is essential to our democracy.

I have had the opportunity to sit on many committees regarding SDTC and the Liberals' green slush fund. I have been watching this unravel for quite some time now. Considering all the testimony we have heard, the ministers we have spoken to and the numerous reports from the Auditor General, it is completely mind-boggling that the government and its members are still trying to cover this up.

Despite the overwhelming evidence revealing the depths of this corruption scandal, the Liberals continue to evade accountability. They are avoiding it so fiercely that they are willing to stall the work of Parliament, diverting our attention from the critical issues that matter most to Canadians, like soaring housing costs, food insecurity, rising crime rates, increasing drug use and the growing homelessness crisis. This is nothing short of shameful.

The Liberals continue to tell the press that they are eager to move past this debate, claiming it is the Conservatives who are wasting time and resources. Let me remind the Liberals that they are the only members of this House who voted against this motion; that they alone possess the power to resume parliamentary proceedings. They could refocus on the issues that matter to Canadians by simply handing over all unredacted documents. It is as simple as that. Instead, they choose to hide behind procedural delays, prioritizing their own political survival over the urgent needs of everyday Canadians. It is a government that is completely tired and has lost touch with reality, more concerned with covering its tracks than addressing the struggles of the citizens it was elected to serve.

Perhaps this can serve as a wake-up call to the government. Recent polling from Abacus Data paints a stark picture of the growing discontent among Canadians. A staggering 57% of those living in Liberal-held ridings want their member of Parliament to call on the Prime Minister to resign and not seek re-election. Let that sink in to the Liberal members who are listening to this speech. This is not just a minor concern. It is a clear signal from the electorate that it is fed up with the Liberals. Time is up.

Moreover, only one in five Canadians believe the Prime Minister should run again. Almost half of Canadians want him to resign immediately. This not just the rejection of his leadership; it is an entire rejection of the approach the current government has taken. Among those who voted Liberal in 2021 but have since lost faith in the party, the numbers are even more alarming: A staggering 40% want the Prime Minister to resign immediately.

This is not just about political preferences; it is about accountability and trust, accountability in the face of corruption. The evidence of mismanagement and unethical practices surrounding SDTC and the Liberal government's green slush fund is undeniable. Canadians are tired of seeing their hard-earned tax dollars misused while the government tries to cover its tracks. The Prime Minister's unwillingness to address these issues head-on and hand over the documents has clearly eroded trust and made it clear that accountability was never a priority for him and the government. It is shameful.

The question we must now ask is this: How much longer will the government ignore the voices of the very people it was elected to serve? The Liberals can no longer afford to dismiss the mounting discontent as mere political noise. We know that at least 20, if not 30, members really wanted the Prime Minister to resign as of today. They must recognize that their actions have consequences and the people and Liberal members are demanding change.

These data reflect a fundamental shift in the political landscape. Canadians are seeking true leadership that prioritizes their needs and not a government more focused on self-preservation and evading accountability. The public is rightly outraged at the corruption that has been allowed to fester under this Prime Minister, and it is time for the Liberals to face the reality of their situation or to step aside and give Canadians the carbon tax election they want and deserve.

It is time for our country to be led by Canada's next great Prime Minister, the member for Carleton. As Conservatives, we stand ready to offer a vision that restores trust and accountability in government.

It is time for the Prime Minister to listen to the people and step aside for new leadership that puts Canadians first. The call for change is loud and clear, and Conservatives are more than ready to form government, end the corruption, end the scandals and ensure that the voices of Canadians are heard. More importantly, we are ready to respect always the source of the funds that drive this country: taxpayer money.

In conclusion, it is clear that the rights of Parliament and Canadian taxpayers have been violated by the government's refusal to comply. The Speaker has ruled that the House must pause its work until the government fulfills its legal obligation to provide these documents. The Auditor General has exposed the shocking reality that the Prime Minister has clearly turned the SDTC into a green slush fund for Liberal insiders, with $390 million paid out in 180 cases of conflicts of interest. It is unacceptable that the Prime Minister and his ministers were aware of this corruption and did nothing to stop it. The same whistle-blower I quoted earlier called out the minister for innovation not once, not twice, but three times. In fact, they did not stop short of saying that he deliberately misled Canadians, that he misled Parliament and that he knew about the abuse and did absolutely nothing about it until he, the Prime Minister and the corrupt government were outed by the press. The Auditor General has also clearly laid the blame on the industry minister for his failure to monitor these contracts properly.

When did we lose the whole concept of ministerial accountability? At the very beginning, I read the words of the Prime Minister about how they would make mistakes, and when they did, they would own up to them and learn from them. In my three years as a parliamentarian, I have yet to hear one apology from any member of the corrupt government. Those were false words and false promises. Canadians are clearly coming to the same conclusion that I certainly have: We were basically sold a false bill of goods in 2015, 2019 and 2021.

Only common-sense Conservatives are committed to ending this corruption and getting real answers for Canadians. We will hold the government accountable. It is our constitutional obligation to do exactly what we are doing right now, and we will continue to do this as ferociously as possible, each and every day, until the government releases all the unredacted documents.

We will restore integrity to our political system. It is time for transparency and change. It is time for the truth.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about the production of documents in relation to an RCMP investigation. I know that this member is a former prosecutor. He never misses an opportunity to remind us of that.

Quite simply, in the 15-plus years that he was a prosecutor, how many times did he, or a police organization he was working with, obtain evidence through an order of Parliament? Could he tell the House that?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what the member fails to realize is that the government is actually the complainant in this particular matter. There is clear evidence of criminality. There is clear evidence of fraud in the awarding of taxpayer money.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

If you would let me finish the response before interrupting, you might get a response that you would be satisfied with.

Mr. Speaker, they love to interrupt.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order.

The hon. member for Brantford—Brant.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what the new member for Kingston and the Islands fails to appreciate is that any order of Parliament is supreme. It is the law. The member and his government are actually the complainants.

If there were really an interest in holding these individuals, who forfeited the ability to receive funds lawfully but did so through criminal means, then he would actually understand that there is an obligation to work with the RCMP and hand over the documents. Government members are not doing so, because they are clearly trying to protect someone on or behind that front bench. That is the only logical conclusion. They have the ability.

Just because it has never been done before, it does not mean that there is no lawful way to release the documents.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, prior to the current Liberal government, which has been in power for nine years, the Conservatives were in power for nine years. I happened to be in the House for most of that time, and under the Conservative government, the Phoenix pay scandal cost taxpayers $2 billion, a $50-million slush fund was administered by Tony Clement and there were a number of Senate scandals. Also, the Harper government was found in contempt not once but twice for, guess what, refusing to hand over documents ordered by Parliament detailing how it was spending money on crime bills and dealing with the Afghan detainee matter. There was also election fraud galore, for which we watched Dean Del Mastro, a Conservative MP, be led off in handcuffs to jail. If we were to try to find out whose list of corruption and scandals was longer between the Liberals and the Conservatives, we would be here all day.

The Speaker has ruled, in agreement with the Conservatives, to produce documents to PROC. There is no order to produce all of the documents to the police. If my hon. colleague wants such an order, why do the Conservatives not raise a question of privilege and ask the Speaker to order that all documents be produced to the police? Is it because they know the Speaker will not do that?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is so good to know the coalition is alive and well. The member just confirmed that.

From my observations at a number of committees and from listening to NDP members, who always talk about the failed, tired, ethically challenged government, the New Democrats will always continue to support their phony leader, who, in a stunt in front of Canadians, ripped up a piece of paper that he claimed was the agreement. Clearly, it was just a stunt within a few days of a by-election.

If the member actually cared about taxpayer money and the at least $400 million from one scandal, he would stand behind the Conservative position and demand that we end this privilege motion by getting the government to release all the documents unredacted.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to hear my colleague speak. I worked with him on the almighty Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, so it is a pleasure to hear him speak today.

At the beginning of the debate on this question of privilege, we heard the government say that this would be an intrusion into the separation of powers. However, it has been shown that submitting evidence is not the same as ordering an investigation. Therefore, there is no intrusion.

The second reason for not handing over the documents was that there is no warrant. My question is this: Is a warrant really necessary to have the right to submit potential evidence?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for the first thoughtful question I have been presented with.

Obtaining search warrants is one particular tool that law enforcement members can use, but they will only rely on search warrants when there is no co-operation in an investigation, particularly from a complainant. As I indicated in my speech and in my responses to a couple of questions, the Liberal government is the complainant. It has a duty to release documents to assist the RCMP in its investigation. Search warrants are a tool but are not required to obtain each and every piece of evidence.

As I also indicated in my speech, if the RCMP receives all the documents unredacted and there is a concern that there was no judicial authorization, there is something called the discoverability rule. As the RCMP is reviewing material, if it has a suspicion of some level of criminality, it is legally bound to stop the review, write to a justice for judicial authorization to continue that review and then potentially lay charges.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the experience my colleague from Brantford—Brant brings to this place regarding criminal matters.

One of the biggest concerns I see is the continual erosion of the constitutional principle of the supremacy of Parliament. It is essential that this place is able to fulfill its obligation as the supreme adjudicator and law-making body of this land.

I am wondering if my colleague from Ontario has further comments about the concerning trend we see from the Liberals, especially when it comes to the lengths they seem willing to go to erode constitutional principles to cover up their scandals and corruption.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a one-off. It demonstrates a pattern of unaccountability in the government.

As I have indicated, and I did not even list them all, although I know some of my colleagues have listed scandal after scandal and identified the misuse of taxpayer funds, we are talking about the misuse of billions of dollars of taxpayer funds. There is no question that the way the government has conducted itself over the last nine years has created a deep level of mistrust, which Canadians have, in the ability of the government to always act in their best interests.

To my colleague's question, what it shows is a complete disrespect for this particular institution. Our hallmark of democracy is literally being mocked on a daily basis, for the last 13 sitting days, by the government defying the will of the majority of parliamentarians and, in its face, defying the will of the Speaker of the House.

It is not the first time it has happened. Let us take a look at the Winnipeg lab scandal. The government literally took the House of Commons and the Speaker to court in refusing to release documents, again hiding a scandal and embarrassment. I would really love to know which minister, which member, it is trying to protect.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Ethics

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, members in this place have been extremely frustrated and embarrassed by the lack of accountability of the Liberal government to comply with basic orders of Parliament over the last year. Then the Liberals go out into the public and say, “Oh, you know, Parliament has been ground to a halt because of...,” and we can insert any reason other than the government's complete unwillingness to adhere to the laws of this place.

I stand here tonight deeply frustrated. Colleagues in this place have voted to release documents related to a variety of different scandals this government is involved in. One is related to 400 million dollars' worth of potential misappropriations related to this green slush fund.

Earlier this year, I asked a question about a sitting minister of the Crown being involved in a company that was involved in misappropriations and malfeasance. Even if we dispose of this privilege motion related to the green slush fund that we have been seized with for weeks, because the government refuses to turn documents over, we are going to be seized with another privilege motion afterwards related to a sitting minister of the Crown.

His business associate said things like, “Oh, it was autocorrect; it wasn't Randy, it was Shpandy.” It is so ridiculous. We are at the point of preposterousness.

I cannot believe I have to rise in this place to ask for clarification when the government should just be handing over documents so that the members of the opposition, and frankly, even members of the governing party who have a fiduciary obligation to hold the government to account, can actually just get on with that business.

I have been doing this a hot minute. I have been very blessed to be the voice of the residents of Calgary Nose Hill in this place. Now I have to stand here and argue the question of a sitting minister of the Crown handing over documents related to his business with his partner saying that, no, it was not him, the other Randy; it was somebody with autocorrect, who was Shpandy. I know how ridiculous that sounds, because it is ridiculous. It is preposterous. It is a mockery of Canadian democracy.

To anybody who stands up from the government who tries to defend this ridiculousness: it is embarrassing and it is preposterous. It is a mockery of every Canadian who pays taxes, who votes and who thinks this place functions.

I cannot believe I am here having to say, “Please, government, comply with the privilege motion where you hand over documents or comply with the order of the Auditor General or any other basic function of democracy.” Yet, here we are on multiple different occasions. Literally, we had a business associate of a sitting minister of the Crown, who benefited from tax dollars, effectively say, “Oh, no, it wasn't this minister of the Crown. It was an autocorrect and it was Shpandy.”

Can the government just give it a rest and hand over the documents so we can get on with the business of making this place work?

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

Mr. Speaker, not on one or two occasions, but on three occasions, the Ethics Commissioner has cleared the minister the member is referring to.

Let me go to the bigger picture she is talking about with what we have been seeing over the last 12 or 13 sitting days. We have an opposition party that is so outside of reality that it is only focused on its leader and what is in the best interests of the Conservative Party, not what is in the best interests of Canadians. That is what we have witnessed over the last 13 days.

The member says we should just provide the documents. What she is really saying is that we should believe the Conservative-Reform party, not listen to what the RCMP is saying and do what Conservatives say. The leader of the Conservative Party continues to put his thumb up to the RCMP, the Auditor General, the former law clerk and others in a total lack of respect to what we are supposed to be doing in the House. It is an abuse of power that we are seeing from the Conservative leader. I say that without reservation because that is the truth, whether the member wants to hear it or not.

When the member talks about what is taking place now, in essence she is saying what the Liberal Party should not be listening to. I have a letter from the chief commissioner of the RCMP, which says, “There is significant risk that the Motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.” The letter is indicating that he does not support the tactic the Conservative Party of Canada is using.

That is not the only thing that the Conservatives are putting their thumbs up to. I have an article from iPolitics. This is a reflection on the so-called leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada today. The article reads:

Wesley Wark, who has advised both Liberal and Conservative governments on national security issues, said the Tory leader is knowingly misleading the public by claiming he doesn’t need the clearance because his chief of staff has received briefings.

“[The leader]'s idea that it’s sufficient for his chief of staff to be briefed for him and for his chief of staff to share that information with him is complete nonsense,” Wark told iPolitics.

The leader of the Conservative Party has absolutely no respect for this institution, let alone other institutions, whether it is the RCMP or the Office of the Auditor General. He has not only demonstrated that in the last number of months, but also demonstrated that when he was the parliamentary secretary to former prime minister Stephen Harper, who was held in contempt of the House of Commons, the first and only prime minister who has been held in contempt of Parliament.

The Conservative Party has a lot to learn about the actions it has taken. Its sole focus has been on the Conservative Party and its leader as opposed to what is in the best interests of Canadians. Instead of debating substantive legislation or talking about serious issues in Canada, Conservatives want to filibuster their own motion and prevent it from ultimately passing. It is something that we want to see go to PROC.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the member's attention to a name that is going to be seared upon his heart over the next year. The name is Rachel Punzalan. She is a strong, feisty Filipino woman who is committed to bringing truth and speaking truth to power.

I have sat in this place with the member for years, and I will just tell him this: Every moment that he continues to carry the water of the Prime Minister, with his lies, his deceit and his scandal, is a moment that Rachel is knocking on a door in his riding, or going to a Filipino event, and saying time is up for this stuff.

Is the member willing to sacrifice all of his principles and the principles of the people of his riding to continue to support these lies? If he is, I know for a fact that Rachel will continue to speak truth to power and take his seat.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I never ever do is take my constituents for granted. I feel very fortunate that on 10 occasions, the people, particularly in the Inkster area, have been very supportive of me. I appreciate that.

Having said that, I am not going to be intimidated or blackmailed in any fashion by any Conservative from speaking the truth. Contrary to the lies that we hear from the leader of the Conservative Party on a daily basis coming out of the leader's office. I would suggest that there is a way around this, which is to recognize that we need to see the Conservative Party's emphasis shift to what is in the best interest of Canadians and start allowing the House of Commons, once again, to deal with legislation and other important issues that Canadians want to see take place. I encourage them all to do that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Before going to the next speaker, we used the word “lies” twice there. I just want to make sure we back away from starting a rig on that one.

The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.