Debates of Oct. 28th, 2024

The House resumed from October 25 consideration of the motion, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of members to move up a few rows so we have the proper backdrop of those who knew the individual whom I am going to speak about.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged, yet saddened, to rise to honour my former boss, my mentor and my friend, Robert Sopuck. I thank all my colleagues for allowing me this opportunity to honour this great Canadian, the former member of Parliament for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

Robert, or Bob as he was known by his many friends, passed away suddenly, but peacefully, last week in his home near Lake Audy, Manitoba. He is survived by his beloved wife, Caroline; two children, Tony, and his wife Lainee, and his daughter, Marsha, and husband Graham; three grandchildren, who he simply loved to teach about the outdoors, Eden, Senon and Esmee; by his sister, Joyce, and brother, Tim; by many nieces and nephews; and by so many other loved ones across the country who simply cherished Bob.

I want to offer, on behalf of the Conservative Party, our appreciation to Bob's family for sharing him with us, particularly his beloved wife, who he often referred to so proudly as “the inestimable Caroline.” His love for her serves as an inspiration for all of us who have been lucky enough to witness it.

Today I hope to do justice to a great parliamentarian, and a great man, and I apologize in advance as I may get emotional. I have some family with us today. My wife and I were married, but we had our big wedding celebration on Saturday, and we were expecting Bob and Caroline to be with us.

Back in 2016, I was hired by Bob after a very robust interview process. I went to his office and we talked about life and politics for about two hours over a scotch. He cared about the person, not the résumé. Little did I know at that time the profound impact he would have on my life.

Bob was described by a newspaper he surely never read, the Toronto Star, as the “right-wing environmentalist”, which is actually a very good way to describe him. However, he was not an environmentalist, he was a conservationist. He believed that those who lived, worked and played on the land were our best conservationists and the true environmentalists. He recognized the value of modern agriculture, of ranching, of natural resource development and all of the rural communities that those industries supported. He was an avid outdoorsman, a true conservationist himself, and perhaps the strongest advocate that hunters, anglers and trappers in Canada have ever had.

Bob was born to parents of eastern European descent and immigration, and while he was raised in the city, he spent his summers in Whiteshell, where he learned his love of the outdoors. He caught his first fish at the age of four with his father, which kicked off a life of outdoor pursuits.

Bob went on to receive an honours degree in science from the University of Manitoba, and then a Master of Fishery Science from an ivy league school, Cornell University, with a particular focus on rainbow trout. From there, he held a wide variety of careers in land, water and wildlife conservation. He worked as a fisheries biologist at both the provincial and federal levels before he decided he wanted to purchase a beautiful, sprawling piece of farmland near Lake Audy, just south of his beloved national park, Riding Mountain National Park, on which he built with his own hands a beautiful, secluded log home.

He spent a lot of time in the Arctic and did a lot of work there, focusing on Arctic char research, and had so many amazing stories. He had such respect for the people he had the chance to live with, the Inuit. He did some of the earliest environmental impact research on the long-proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline, and I think one of his greatest regrets is that pipeline never came to fruition.

Bob was a farmer. He was a guide. He was an outfitter. He was the environmental adviser for the former premier of Manitoba, Gary Filmon. He went on to be the environmental director at the Pine Falls paper plant, improving water quality, quantitatively. He worked for Delta Waterfowl, and after retiring from this place, returned as a board member there. He did environmental monitoring in the oil sands. He understood policy, because his boots were on the ground.

He often joked, when somebody would introduce him to do a speech, that it was reasonable to think “Can this guy not keep a job?”, but those jobs and those experiences formed his views on conservation and on natural resource development and the rural way of life.

I list this depth of careers because it highlights that he earned his stripes, which allowed him to be an incredible advocate and an even better member of Parliament.

Bob was a brilliant communicator, and he knew how important effective communications were, that words mattered. He was brilliant not because he was suave, some fast-talking salesman-type guy, but because he was authentic, honest, thoughtful, direct, articulate and had a heck of a vocabulary on him. He was wicked smart, and he always preferred to stand up for the little guy. He was not willing to lay down to the mobs, to the loud minority that wanted to shout down views like his at times. It was an inspiration when he so proudly and so frequently stood up and bluntly said what needed to be said. He had been doing it for decades.

Starting back in 2001, Bob wrote a regular column with the Winnipeg Free Press, in which he refused to shy away from issues like hunting and angling. Those essays beautifully articulated the spirituality and connection to family and nature that so many millions of Canadians enjoy today. He explained why so many of us felt that it was vital to protect the rights of those people and their ability to take part in those traditional heritage activities.

He went on to compile these essays into a wonderful book, A Life Outdoors, which, looking back while I was reading it last night, I think is an unintentional biography, from catching that first fish with his dad at four years old to his life as that avid outdoorsman. It is a wonderful book. I would encourage people to pick it up, particularly if they enjoy outdoor activities. It also has some phenomenal recipes for wild game, which I have tasted and are very good.

Bob had the chance to elevate those communication skills and decided to run for office back in 2010. He ran because he knew he had something to offer. He wanted to make a difference and to fight for what he believed in. That is what he did in this place every single day of his nine years as a member of Parliament.

Bob had an incredible understanding, which I was so lucky to have witnessed, of what this job was. The first was, obviously, to represent our local communities, to fight and advocate for them, and try to get things done for them. This is something that each and every one of us in the House works to do. The second was to do what was right for Canada, the big-picture country that has diverse views and many challenges at times, to fight for what was right and to fight with that same level of passion that he did for the communities he so proudly represented.

He knew his constituents. He knew their way of life, their values, their struggles, their challenges, their hopes, their dreams and their aspirations. He had the benefit that he had worked in politics in his early days with the Manitoba government, as had his wife, Caroline, which allowed him to be all the more effective. He knew when to be loud, when it made sense to pick a fight, and do it publicly, to try to move the needle on something. He also knew when it made more sense to keep it behind the scenes to try to quietly get things done. He knew to keep it on the ice, and that is why he was so respected and liked by colleagues from across party lines.

Locally, he was so proud to have helped deliver funding to pave Highway 10 through Riding Mountain National Park. Anybody who knows the area or lives in area and commutes through it knows how important it is. Anyone who has the chance to visit that beautiful national park will be a benefactor of the work he did lobbying to get that done, as has anyone who benefited from funding through the recreational fisheries conservation partnership program.

That program was launched back in 2013 and supported fisheries habitat restoration projects led by recreational angling groups, fisheries groups and conservation groups. There are lakes across Canada where spawning habitat has been restored, aerators have been installed and anglers will reap the benefits today, tomorrow and for the years ahead. Just as Bob wanted, it was done with the people who care so much about the natural world, who will get in hip waders, get into the water and want to make meaningful impacts on our fishery stocks. He knew the best people were those who wanted to get things done, who not only wanted to talk about doing things but they put their money where their mouth was.

Through perseverance, persuasion and perhaps just sheer stubbornness, he was able to convince former Finance Minister Flaherty and Prime Minister Harper to enable this plan, and it is an ever-lasting legacy for the projects that it undertook. It would never have happened without Bob Sopuck. I would go so far as to argue that, single-handedly, Bob has saved more fish in our country than anyone else ever has.

Throughout his career, he was an effective and long-time member of the fisheries committee and loved every minute of it. I think his colleagues appreciated him there, too. That committee was always, and I think still is, rather cordial with many unanimous reports. He was also on the environment committee, which at times is a little less polite.

Bob was a pit bull. Given his Ivy League education and his series of careers prior to being elected, not many people were going to best him at any topic at those two committees. That included the bureaucrats who I remember once telling Bob, whenever he was there, that they knew they had to be on their toes. He was so very proud of that. He just revelled in the opportunity to rip apart some pompous executive who thought they could get away with saying things that were not actual answers. He would fight to get the answers and he would run circles around them.

Now, I am a proud member of the environment committee, and the lessons I have learned could not be more clear. Some of those officials now know where I learned it from. I have to mention the Fisheries Act specifically, because Bob wrote a paper back in 2001 entitled “The Federalization of Prairie Freshwater”, which was the policy framework used by the Harper government when making important changes to the Fisheries Act.

It was 10 years after he wrote it that the catalyst for those changes finally happened: it was overland flooding in Saskatchewan. At the Craven country jamboree, threatened due to excess rain, a campground was unable to be pumped because DFO declared there was water there now, so clearly fish could be there. There was habitat so we had to prevent it from being pumped. Normal person logic said that was not really fish habitat, it was a campground, but it was the definition of fish habitat in the act that was the problem.

Bob knew it and identified it years earlier. He went on to lead the charge drafting that legislation to make those important changes to stop ridiculous overreach from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that had a real impact on rural Canadians and our prosperity. He understood that unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats had to be kept in check, that they did not understand our way of life, that he had to be involved in educating them.

Bob was the founder of our Conservative hunting and angling caucus with the help of his close friend, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe. That member has carried the torch ever since. I know for a fact he will not only keep Bob's legacy alive, but he will be the steadfast advocate that community needs and will continue to work on their behalf. He is joined by so many of my Conservative colleagues, such as the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, who are dedicated to protecting these communities. There are so many more; they know who they are, and it is appreciated.

There are millions of law-abiding firearms owners in this country, of hunters, of anglers, of people who contribute directly to enhancing our wildlife populations, and as Bob would always say, are the environment's best friends. We would not think communities like this necessarily need protecting, but, unfortunately, they do. For the most part, rural Canadians do not really care what happens in big cities. They just kind of want to be left alone, but for some reason, many of those radical environmental and animal rights activists living in their concrete jungles have a real keen interest in what happens on our private landscapes.

We need great MPs like my colleagues to continue to stand up for that now in his honour. I am proud to join those efforts and will continue to take part in any of those future fights. When I think back to some of the fights, he revelled in a good fight. One I remember he led the charge on, which was important, was Bill C-246. It was an animal rights bill that would transfer human rights to animals. What it was going to do was destroy modern agriculture, animal livestock agriculture. It was going to destroy hunting and angling in this community.

He led with help from across party lines, using those relationships he had built by being the guy he was, to kill that legislation. I remember when the RCMP decided to try to appease those animal rights activists and get rid of the iconic muskrat hat for Mounties, Bob was having none of that. He wanted to protect the livelihood of those trappers across the country and the warmth of our frontline police officers serving in our northern communities. He walked the walk and he was a true friend of the trapping community. Many of us may remember him strutting around here with a fur jacket, with his own muskrat hat and these big old skunk mitts. He was the real deal.

Bob was always on the lookout for government overreach, or efforts that would impact the people he was sent here to represent, which is why he was great. He was not just about defending, he was vocal in supporting and promoting, proactively working to set the stage to communicate with the average person who otherwise might not think about these issues or even realize they cared about them. In many cases, these were urban audiences, like when he was writing for the Winnipeg Free Press.

What might be less known is the impact he had on so many people, directly, personally, individually and, particularly, on young people. I think it is important to highlight the legacy that this leaves behind. Bob freely shared his wisdom and his wealth of knowledge with young people around him, understanding that it was not just about today, that it was about tomorrow. Anything he could do to nurture the next generation, he was willing to do.

He was a mentor to so many of us, to those who worked directly for him and to our friends he got to know, he would spend time with and to whom he would give, generously, of his time. We, each and every one of us, loved him. He gave so much time. He would answer questions candidly, provide advice when asked and sometimes when not asked. He would share his life experiences and those incredible stories that he had amassed over that wonderful life of his. He treated us like part of the team or the family, which is why I think he was referred to as Uncle Bob by so many people. He made us believe that we actually had something to contribute, that we mattered.

I know I am going to miss some names on the list, but I want to give a bit of a scale of some who have been impacted. I think of Duncan, Brett, Michael, Blake, Olivier, Jay, Megan and the Simms boys, just to name a few. Just like him, he wanted us to be authentic and humble. He wanted us to be proud of where we were, what we were doing, where we were going and what it meant.

Simply put, he wanted each one of us to believe in ourselves and he made that a little bit easier. He loved telling stories and he had so many profound statements. I do not know what to call them other than Bob-isms. I can think of a couple, one of which was, “I take the view that if you give up fat, sugar, and alcohol too, you may not live longer, it will just feel that way.”

On a more serious note, there are two quotes. “Life is about chapters. You have to turn the page on one before you can start the next.” “Nothing lasts forever, and nothing stays the same.”

He lived in the now. He was not one for birthdays or arbitrary reasons to celebrate. He preferred milestones and achievements. He espoused sharing stories of the past, not living them, of looking to the future but not dwelling on it, enjoying the moment, and being proud and happy with where you were, being rational and thoughtful, asking questions and acting with purpose, and recognizing that the best way to achieve success was to do it with passion and to embrace the challenge in front of us and to find the opportunity within it.

When Bob retired, our relationship did not just stop like we would expect with many bosses and their employees. He called in regularly to catch up. I would go visit Bob and Caroline at the farm. He was the first to pledge a donation when I called him with the crazy idea that I was going to run for politics. He was the one I had introduce me at the nomination campaign launch. He has been by my side since the day we met and I will forever appreciate his friendship, as I know so many others do.

The best part is that I am not unique. There are so many others. I am part of a massive group of people to whom he has meant more than he can ever know. I am going to miss Bob. I thought we had more calls. I thought we had more business on the farm ahead of us. I will be forever grateful for all he has done for me.

In closing, I want to share a quote from one of Bob's favourite writers, Henry David Thoreau. “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.”

Bob lived and lived well. He was a great Canadian and he will live on in all of us who had the privilege to know him. I cannot think of any higher achievement, any higher recognition of a life well lived, than having those who knew us proudly say, after we are gone, that we lost one of the good ones but that I am happy I knew him.

He achieved that. We will miss him and we will never forget.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Before we move to questions and comments, I think it would be appropriate to say that when I was a new MP, I was thoroughly impressed with Bob Sopuck's quick smile, those ruddy cheeks framed by that silver white beard and his firm handshake that welcomed to Parliament Hill. As the hon. member said so well, he will be missed.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, to be very brief, I did not know Bob Sopuck before the by-election in which he was successfully elected. He and I were elected at the same time. He had a very strong personality, a personality that sticks with someone, as did the manner in which he conveyed his thoughts.

I always thought of Bob as a great outdoorsman, someone who truly understood the benefits of a healthy environment, whether it is nature, land or water. I had a deep respect for him. I would classify him as a true Conservative, but a Conservative who could really express himself. One would respect the gentleman and his attitude.

I want to give my condolences to Caroline and the family. I know Bob will be dearly missed and in the prayers of many of his former constituents and Manitoban families. I was really touched by the member's comments in regard to Bob, and I wanted to take the opportunity to wish his family and friends well, and give them our prayers.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the kind words. I will pass those wishes along to the family, though I suspect they may be watching right now. It is appreciated.

The member touched on something I find quite interesting. Bob always talked about the fact that “conservation” and “conservative” come from the same root word. He was the biggest believer and defender of the fact that Conservatives had nothing to be ashamed of when it came to the environment. The greenest prime minister in Canadian history was Brian Mulroney.

His focus was always on outcomes, not process. It drove him up a wall when there was more of a concern on how do we get to where we are going, rather than actually getting there. That focus on outcomes would serve us all well in our lives, but more broadly in government. Government is a behemoth that often, as Bob always said, does not understand many of the facets of our way of life. That is why it is so vital that we step up to defend them and fight as true environmentalists for a better, healthier planet based on metrics. We need to improve the biodiversity of wetland habitats and fishery stocks. That is what I am going to continue to fight for.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by commending the member for Portage—Lisgar for his touching tribute. We were touched by his testimony. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois and all of the people we represent, I would like to extend my deepest condolences to my colleague and to the family and friends of Robert Sopuck. I encourage them to take care of themselves.

I was elected in 2019, so I did not have the privilege of knowing Mr. Sopuck. However, based on what I have heard this morning, I think I would have really liked to meet him. It seems as though he was a true model of commitment. He was described as a right-wing environmentalist, which is something that we do not see very often. I think that we need more people like him, compassionate people with a sense of duty. According to what the member for Portage—Lisgar said, Mr. Sopuck stood up for the little guy. I like that and I support it. The role of an MP is to stand up for their constituents, to proudly and faithfully represent them and to go to bat for them. I support that too.

That is a challenge that the 338 members of the House of Commons have to deal with on a daily basis: Knowing when to go to bat for their constituents publicly and when to do so privately. A lot of informal discussions take place here, and I think we get a lot of results that way. I am absolutely convinced that I would have loved this man.

Take what I just said as an example. I am a Bloc member from Quebec talking about a Conservative member from Manitoba, and I have just pointed out a number of things we have in common. We must always remember that, most of the time, we have a lot more in common than we might think. I urge us to work together to make progress on the issues and improve society, for the common good. I am sure my colleague from Portage—Lisgar will agree with me.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, all our elected officials and all those we represent, I once again offer my most sincere condolences.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the well wishes.

I agree with him. Bob had a fondness for Quebec. Quebeckers have a very high rate of firearms ownership and have a love of the outdoors: plodding, sledding and doing all the modern and traditional heritage activities. He always felt a strong connection with many people in Quebec. That is why he was focused on Canada broadly and on the many individuals who shared his views. I could not be more proud of that and can only aim and hope to achieve half of what that man ever did.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech today. It was very touching to hear the words he had to say about his former colleague. While I did not have the pleasure of working with the late Mr. Sopuck, I have heard many things from my colleagues in the lobby. Many have very funny stories about their time working with him.

I have to acknowledge that there were very few times the late Mr. Sopuck and the New Democrats saw eye to eye, but one thing they appreciated about him was that he was an avid outdoor enthusiast who championed the rural way of life. As part of his enthusiasm, he was also a dedicated conservationist. As someone who comes to this place on the heels of Linda Duncan, another important conservationist in the House, I know that was very important to the New Democrats.

His devotion to a rural way of life endeared him to many across party lines, and on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would like to extend my condolences to his family and friends. I would ask the member to share some more stories of the late member.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the kind words.

Bob probably did not get along with every NDP MP and certainly would happily disagree on many policy issues, but to give an example where that was not the case, I note former MP Fin Donnelly. I had the privilege of joining them on occasion for a scotch and an across-the-lines political and candid among-the-rurals conversation, because that was the kind of guy Bob was. He could not necessarily understand why people felt the way they did, but he would say that we should probably sit down and ask them. That is what made him a brilliant communicator for different audiences, particularly the urban audiences that he worked with during his time at the Winnipeg Free Press.

I think Bob still owed Fin a couple of bottles of scotch from a couple of bets that did not go his way, but he will hopefully be forgiven for that. I know he enjoyed many opportunities with some of his former colleagues.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what is funny is that, even though I am an Alberta MP who has been here for quite some time, two of my best friends have been Bob Sopuck and Candice Bergen, the MP my colleague just replaced. People back home might be questioning my Alberta credentials right now, but they do not need to worry about that; they are still intact.

Of course, I express my condolences to Caroline and the entire family.

One thing I look back on is that Bob and I spent a lot of time here together. He put the meat on the bones of the Conservative hunting and angling caucus. He galvanized it. I was here a bit before him and we became instant friends because of our like-minded views of the world. I grew up on a beef ranch in Alberta and loved hunting and fishing. I have spent time as an outdoorsman, a conservation officer, a national park warden and a fisheries technician for Alberta Fish and Wildlife working on walleye. We became fast friends. I was able to spend a bit of time in his riding and he was able to spend a bit time in mine. We did a bit of hunting and fishing together too. The Sims boys were there.

One of the best duck hunts I have ever been on in my life was with Bob Sopuck. These canvasbacks were going 100 miles an hour, jinking all over the place. We could not hit anything. I openly admit that. I think we probably fired 100 rounds of shotgun shells and came back with three ducks, but we had a lot of fun.

He was a great guy, and I am beside myself. I am going to miss Bob. We stayed in touch on a regular basis. He did not just come and go or do his thing and leave; he still cared. I was so angry when he left because I felt like I lost half of the duo, but I am glad he did now because we never know how much time we are going to have. I am glad that he was able to spend those years back in his beautiful log house on the farm with Caroline.

One thing I loved about Bob is that he would always find a way to defend rural folk. As a guy who grew up on a cow-calf operation, he would defend beef farmers as some of the best environmentalists we have. They are often under attack. I wonder if my colleague would elaborate on how well Mr. Sopuck defended the cattle ranchers in this great country.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe. They were as close as one can get. The member is a true Albertan, but I think Manitobans appreciate having him in their back pocket.

Bob cherished those hunts and those days on the lake with the member and so many other people. That is where he was happy. On the beautiful, sprawling farm he had, he managed the landscape. He was a gardener of his little piece of earth. That was the way he thought. He wanted more ducks, more available, and he took action to do so.

When I was working for him, we made a video called “Eating Canadian Beef is Good for the Environment”. It did not seem that controversial, but it did get a bit of push-back. It was the first time that I learned many animal rights activists are kind of sociopaths, and he warned me about that. A lot of the online comments, death threats and suggestions of ways he should die, which I hid with current advanced tools, were telling.

He did it with such pride. He knew that ranchers are our best boots on the ground and are important for maintaining our national grasslands and rural communities. I could not say how many groups thought he was the best friend they could have ever had: hunters, anglers, trappers, ranchers, every other type of agricultural producer and many others.

He was always grounded by his belief in the rural way of life: protecting it, maintaining it and fighting for it. He was one of the best at it there could ever be.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank all members for participating in a touching tribute to a former member, one who touched so many people here.

We wish Caroline, his family and all his friends the solace of having so many memories with him.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what a privilege it is to stand here, as I am preparing to do a speech in a completely different direction, and have the opportunity to reflect on a colleague with whom I had a chance to serve for many years in the House of Commons, Bob Sopuck. It was such a privilege to listen to my hon. colleague's fantastic speech and reflections. My thoughts are, as everybody else's are, with the family.

Moving to the issue we have been discussing for quite some time and will potentially discuss for quite some time, I imagine until there is a resolution, the best way to start my comments today is to read from the opposition motion that precipitated the conversation we are having right now. It was from back in June, and I believe it passed in the House on June 10, which is a key date, as members will hear when I read from the motion.

The opposition motion, which passed the House with the support of the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives of course, stated:

That the House order the government, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) and the Auditor General of Canada each to deposit with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, within 14 days of the adoption of this order—

The order was adopted on June 10.

—the following documents, created or dated since January 1, 2017, which are in its or her possession, custody or control:

(a) all files, documents, briefing notes, memoranda, e-mails or any other correspondence exchanged among government officials regarding SDTC;

(b) contribution and funding agreements to which SDTC is a party;

(c) records detailing financial information of companies in which past or present directors or officers of SDTC had ownership, management or other financial interests;

(d) SDTC conflict of interest declarations;

(e) minutes of SDTC's Board of Directors and Project Review Committee; and

(f) all briefing notes, memoranda, e-mails or any other correspondence exchanged between SDTC directors and SDTC management;

provided that,

(g) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall promptly thereafter notify the Speaker whether each entity produced documents as ordered, and the Speaker, in turn, shall forthwith inform the House of the notice of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel but, if the House stands adjourned, the Speaker shall lay the notice upon the table pursuant to Standing Order 32(1); and

(h) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall provide forthwith any documents received by him, pursuant to this order, to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for its independent determination of whether to investigate potential offences under the Criminal Code or any other act of Parliament.

We are sitting here five months later and are continuing to debate this because the conditions in this opposition motion, passed by the House, have not been met. Of course, as soon as the House came back, our opposition House leader raised a question of privilege, and that question of privilege was debated at length.

In your ruling, Mr. Speaker, you referenced the adoption date of June 10, and we get a chance, from the speech you made when you made your ruling, to talk about some of the issues. As I was preparing for this speech, I took the time to read some of the comments you made. I have sat here and listened to government members, or future opposition members, hopefully in the near future, raise some of their concerns. I was not here for the debate when we were raising the question of privilege in the first place, but I did not realize that those concerns had been raised. You, Mr. Speaker, dealt with them and made the ruling that you made regardless. It is interesting to note that.

I will note that in the Speaker's ruling, the Speaker said, “The Chair cannot come to any other conclusion but to find that a prima facie question of privilege has been established.” He went on to say many other things, but he pointed out, even as he made some of the points the government has pointed to in its comments, questions and debate, that it is “ultimately for the House to decide how it wishes to proceed in the face of such objections”.

Here we are today as a House continuing to fight this situation.

We can take a look at some of the background, for folks who might be tuning in for the first time. Many people have heard of what we have referred to as the green slush fund, but we could refer to it with many different terms, all of which would probably properly focus on the scandalous nature of this situation. It goes back to the Auditor General of Canada finding that the Prime Minister turned SDTC into a slush fund for Liberal insiders, and this is the point we have made over and over again.

There is a recording of a senior civil servant talking about the “outright incompetence” of the Liberal government giving 390 million dollars' worth of contracts out inappropriately, at a time when the government is racking up unprecedented, and “unprecedented” is not a strong enough word for it, levels of spending, deficits and debt. We are spending more today on interest on the debt racked up by this government than we are spending on transfers to the provinces for health care. That is unheard of. I think that is uncomprehensible for most Canadians, and it is understandable that people would be infuriated by what they are hearing and that they would want answers.

What we are doing here, holding this place, temporarily, as His Majesty's official opposition, is getting prepared to clean up the mess the Liberal government has created. We are standing here on behalf of voters. I have the privilege to stand here on behalf of the voters of Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, who at every turn are asking me to level some form of accountability from the government, using the power I have, with the seat I have in the House, for the unbelievably and devastatingly wasteful spending we have seen.

In this case, we are talking about $390 million. The Auditor General found that SDTC gave $58 million to 10 ineligible projects that, on occasions, could not demonstrate any environmental benefit or development of green technology at all. We are talking about $334 million, from 186 cases, to projects where board members held a conflict of interest and $58 million to projects without ensuring contribution agreements were met. I believe the Auditor General also made it very clear that the responsibility falls on the Liberal government and the Liberal minister responsible.

We are here to get answers. We moved a motion so information could be made available to the appropriate authorities. I have to make it really clear that nowhere in the motion does the House order the RCMP to conduct an investigation. This is something the Liberals have said over and over again. The House is simply asking that documents be provided and have the opportunity to be scrutinized.

The whistle-blower who was at the public accounts committee had this to say: “Just as I was always confident that the Auditor General would confirm the financial mismanagement at SDTC, I remain equally confident that the RCMP will substantiate the criminal activities that occurred within the organization.” We trust the whistle-blower, and if the documents are provided, we have faith in the RCMP to decide what to do with them.

I will note, for history's sake, that the Auditor General gave a clean bill of health to SDTC back in 2017, so it is important to understand the timeline, with a government that chose Liberal insiders as board members since then. Liberal members have had lots of time to speak on this topic and make arguments. It was only after 2017 that we saw the board voting to give itself tax dollars from the fund the Auditor General is referring to.

It is interesting because the hon. member, the lead member in the House for the Liberal side who stands up so often in this place and who just heckled me, can go into caucus every Wednesday and, if he wants to, make the argument to have these documents produced so Canadians can make their assessment. Surely, if his argument is correct, the documents will bear that out and then he can stand up in the House and point to those documents. I am not sure whether he can get on the list to actually speak in the caucus meetings; I am not sure what the process is. It might be easier to get up on this topic. I am sure the Liberals are looking for anybody to get up and talk about anything other than whether their leader should step down right now, so maybe this is the time. I will give him some advice, if he is willing to take it, that maybe this is his opportunity to make the argument for the release of these documents so his arguments can be borne out.

I will tell members why Canadians are concerned. I host constituent round tables. We do something a little unique where we bring in 16 constituents on a rotating basis and do 40 or 50 two-hour round tables; people come in, we go around the table and everybody gets a chance to speak, which may be a bit foreign to Liberal members. Everybody gets a chance to speak and raise their issues, and then we have a really good discussion on the issues. I will tell members that at these round tables, people are talking about how they are trying to live their lives in the context of the unbelievable crises, on multiple fronts, that have been caused by the Liberal government. They bring up issues around housing. More and more people are showing up at my round tables. This is in Alberta, where the cost of housing is less expensive than in other parts of the world, but still constituents are talking about housing challenges.

The thing I have noticed more than at any other time, and I have been hosting these round tables for 19 years as a member of Parliament, is that I am seeing 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds coming to round tables talking about the fact that they are having trouble finding work. Then, when they find work and start working full time, they do not believe they are ever going to be able to afford a down payment for a house. In some cases, they are worried they cannot even afford rent for a house. Again, this is not something that I have seen before. However, I have actually seen the same kinds of concerns brought up as I have travelled the country speaking on other things to university students.

Another thing we are hearing a lot about is crime and safety. I am hearing more from young people who are going to university and do not feel safe on public transit anymore. It is an absolutely common concern brought up by constituents at my round tables. Also, I am certainly hearing a lot about budget balance and fiscal responsibility, and questions on who is going to pay for this massive bill incurred by the Liberal government; I do not even want to say it is with a lack of results.

Certainly, there has been a lack of results corresponding to the spending, but the worst thing about this situation is that the more the government spends, the worse the results are. Our outcomes are going down on almost every front that can be measured. The Liberals' response in the House of Commons day in and day out is to ask why we will not support their ever-increasing spending. They have introduced new programs. It is probably good that we are having this prolonged debate right now, in the sense that we want to get an outcome with some accountability; at the same time, while we are having this conversation, the Liberals cannot introduce a new $10-billion, $20-billion or $30-billion program they have cooked up with the NDP, in partnership, to drive us even further into debt. Day in and day out, that has been the Liberals' answer: “Why will you not spend more? Why will you not support us to spend even more money?” Taking a look at the numbers, over $300 million in this case, it is no wonder Canadians do not trust the government to spend their money.

I was elected in January 2006. When I got elected, I replaced someone who had sat on the Liberal side for four straight elections. The context at that time, the main issue, was the sponsorship scandal. The sponsorship scandal did not even come close to touching the numbers we are talking about now. We talked at that point about the long-gun registry that had been brought in by the Liberal government. That seems like ancient history, but we are seeing history repeating itself over and over again. Now we have a gun buyback, which is a complete misnomer because the government never owned the firearms in the first place. The government is talking about spending billions of dollars buying firearms from law-abiding Canadians while record levels of firearms are being smuggled into our country, illegal firearms being used by criminals on the street right now, and the government is doing nothing about it. Of course, back in those days, we also had the HRDC boondoggle and irresponsible spending.

At that time, those were huge issues that brought down a minority Liberal government, but the context is much different today. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars more in deficit spending over the years and our fiscal situation is on the brink of disaster. We have not seen it this tough since the Trudeau years of the 1970s and 1980s. The Trudeau legacy was very difficult for subsequent governments to dig out of. In fact, as I often remind my Liberal colleague across the way, it was the Martin-Chrétien Liberal government that had to cut record levels in spending for health care, social services and education. Because of the policies of the Trudeau government of the seventies and eighties, there had to be 32% cut, absolutely cut, from spending on health care, social services and education, through government transfers, in 1995. That legacy has obviously continued and worsened today.

We are in a worse situation today because of subsequent governments within that same legacy. I believe that out of 25 budgets, there were 24 deficits. That is intolerable when we look at the context of what we are discussing today. We need to get to the bottom of this. As we work to get to the bottom of this, I think the one thing that would help right now would be, quite honestly, if the Prime Minister finally had a realization, if he listened to some of his caucus colleagues who are speaking out. If there is a lot of confidence over there, maybe we will hear that in their questions: declarations of confidence in the Liberal government's approach to things.

If the Liberals are so confident in their approach, maybe we could have an election. Maybe this would be the time. It is the longest-serving minority Parliament in history because of the support the NDP has given the Liberals, to prop it up. Maybe it is time we have an election and take it to the people. If the hon. member over there and his colleagues are so confident, surely their fortunes would turn around and they would be confident in having an election based on the policies of the government, a carbon tax election, which so many Canadians are calling for.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been witnessing an ongoing game that the Conservative Party continues to play at significant expense.

I would like to provide an example of foreign interference. This is an issue that affects us all. All Canadians are concerned about foreign interference. I care passionately about the Sikh and Indo-Canadian communities and the impact that foreign interference is having on them. There is everything from extortion to assassinations, as well as allegations of the Conservative leadership being manipulated through foreign interference and parliamentarians being involved in it. However, every leader in the House of Commons, except for the Conservative leader, has gotten the security clearance. It is not good for the Conservative Party to put its personal interest ahead of the national interest.

Can the member explain why the leader of the Conservative Party refuses to get a security clearance when so many Canadians are concerned about international foreign interference in Canada today?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has asked me a lot of questions, but this might be the first relevant question he has asked in many years. The reality is that, when asked about this, the Conservative leader, the future prime minister, said in the House of Commons the other day that he is not going to be gagged by the Liberal government.

He has the support of the person who was in charge of holding us to account when we were in government, as opposition leader. Tom Mulcair said the same thing: He would not do it if he were the Conservative leader either. The Liberals would like nothing more than for the Conservative leader to take a briefing he cannot talk about so that he cannot ask the questions he is asking in the House of Commons. Those questions are superuncomfortable for the Liberals.

This whole issue is connected to that. It is all about government censorship and the government controlling information Canadians get. I hope the member will take to heart the question that he has just asked, go into caucus on Wednesday, fight for a spot at the microphone and demand that the government release the names of everybody affected by foreign interference in the House.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during the last few weeks of this debate, the government has paralyzed the House of Commons, which is unable to continue with the work of reviewing private members' bills, motions and legislation here on the floor.

In the past, all opposition parties were always united in opposing government corruption, especially Liberal government corruption, which we have seen over the past many decades whenever Liberals were in government. It would eventually lead to the point where it paralyzed Parliament in some way. Typically, opposition parties have always held together in holding the government to account and making sure it produced the documents being demanded by a motion such as this.

Has it perhaps been shown now that other opposition parties are going to break away in the coming weeks and not hold the government to account for the corruption that it has allowed in this one particular fund, leading to this awful situation in which it has come apart? Could the member reflect on that?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I referenced that the election in January 2006 was precipitated by the sponsorship scandal. It was a minority Liberal government at the time that had been supported by the NDP. We saw that it eventually got to a point for the NDP that the scandal and information coming out was bad enough that no one with a conscience serving in opposition could possibly prop up a government in that circumstance.

As I mentioned earlier, the situation we are facing today is infinitely worse than the situation in 2005. I think Canadians find it absolutely abhorrent that members from the NDP, particularly, and the Bloc, from time to time, are finding ways to twist themselves into pretzels to support a government that is so clearly on the wrong path for Canadians.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening intently to the debate, and it is fascinating to hear the information coming from the member for the Conservative Party. I was born and raised in the Waterloo region. I am proud to have been born Canadian. I did not choose the community I was born in. I did not choose my citizenship. However, I will always pick Canada first.

I find it interesting because a lot of what the member responded to is not actually accurate. I listened to the reports that came out last weekend, and the commissioner of the RCMP stated very clearly that the RCMP cannot take this information, because Canadians have certain privileges. People wear their poppy with pride. These are hard-fought rights and freedoms.

Why not let the steps unfold so that the committee can do its work? We know that, with the first wave of information that has gone to the RCMP, it cannot look at it, because we have to respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The rights and freedoms of Canadians matter.

Is there anyone in this chamber opposed to the question of privilege? When will the member's party start basing its decisions on evidence and not ideology? Does he support the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, to listen carefully to that question. The assertion the member makes at the start of the question is that I have said something that is incorrect, but nowhere in her question does she actually itemize anything I said that was incorrect. She talks about evidence, but she does not give one piece of evidence that anything I said was incorrect.

The fact of the matter is that she talks about the privilege motion, but it is important to go back to the opposition day motion for the production of papers that was passed. The Liberals voted against the motion, but the House voted in favour of it. We are here today because the government clearly has not complied.

If the member gets another chance, I would love to hear what she would deem incorrect that I had to say in my speech. I assert that there is nothing and that she knows there is nothing. This is just part of the debate we have seen week in and week out since we came back in September.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am basing it on the assumption that the leader of the official opposition—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Let me hear it first.

The hon. member for Waterloo has the floor.