Debates of Oct. 4th, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that the RCMP will eventually face problems. The RCMP has not expressed any problems. The RCMP has not stated that it is not getting the records or documents it needs in this investigation. If the time comes when the RCMP explicitly states that it is facing problems, then a solution can be worked out. However, let us not presume or assume that the RCMP will eventually face problems and try to push forward a solution that is actually counterproductive.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nepean said he was concerned with conflicts of interest and is disappointed. I would say that is putting it mildly because we are talking here about 186 conflicts of interest involving board members, in which $330 million improperly went out the door, much of it funnelled into board members' companies. The Minister of Industry knew about it or had to have known about it, given the fact that an assistant deputy minister sat in on each and every board meeting when these conflicts occurred.

What does the member say about the minister's responsibility and, frankly, his complicity in the corruption at the green slush fund? If one were to listen to the member's remarks, one would be under the impression this was some distant arm's-length foundation, when nothing could be further from the truth.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr Speaker, I agree with the member about the severity of the conflict of interest, especially when huge amounts of money are involved. I absolutely agree that this matter has to be investigated. If there is corruption or any criminality there, it has to be investigated and the criminals should be brought to justice. My only question is this: What is the process? The process, in my view, is that the RCMP is aware of it and, according to another member today, the RCMP has started its investigation. Let us go through that process. Let us not do something that actually hinders the process of investigation.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have to ensure that people following the debate understand that the ministers responsible took action. Independent reviews were done once it was found out. We had the Auditor General of Canada taking action, and we have complied with and are working with the Auditor General. At the end of the day, there was a freezing of the new funds that were going to be allocated. These are all tangible things to ensure accountability. In terms of transparency, we had a standing committee that has had all sorts of discussions on it. Today's debate is to send it back to a standing committee.

I would ask the member to pick up on the point of why the Conservative Party does not listen to what the RCMP is actually saying, considering that this motion is being brought because of the very real concerns of the RCMP.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that there are various actions that have been undertaken. The moment this was brought to our notice, the Auditor General looked into it. There was a process involved. I honestly have the same concern that the member has that the process we are going through is a bit problematic. I am still not very clear whether it is going to be productive.

My concern is that the process we would be adopting here would be counterproductive and may actually hamper the investigation.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North has clearly not followed all of the facts on this. The member does not clearly understand that a whistle-blower went to the minister's department. For 40 months, while the current minister was sitting in his office, he had an ADM at every meeting at which 82% of the transactions were conflicted. After a whistle-blower was going to the department over three months and became frustrated, as nothing was happening with the minister, that whistle-blower went public, and this appeared in the media. Then, all of a sudden, the minister realized that there was something going on in his department and that he should be doing something.

It is a total falsehood to claim that the minister and the government did anything. They did not do anything until it was out in the public. I would like the member to comment on that.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as to the conflict of interest, I think we should first thank the whistle-blower for publicizing it. I certainly appreciate that. Thankfully, we have a whistle-blower protection act that was passed. We need more whistle-blowers in the various government and arm’s-length organizations, or wherever corruption takes place. It should not happen.

I think it is all very clear what has been done since then. The Auditor General has looked into it. Reports have been produced, and according to the same member, the RCMP has started its investigation. It should have been done a bit earlier, but at least now it has started. Let us see how it goes and wait for its logical end.

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

Mr. Speaker, to the main question that we have here, the House, by majority vote, not just by the Conservative vote, made a decision and ordered that these documents be produced.

On what basis can the government refuse a legal order of the majority of democratically elected members?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a small concern. Whenever the majority of the members here decide something, is it absolute? That is my question.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join in on today's debate on the question of privilege and the violation of parliamentary privilege by the Liberal government in its refusal to produce documents as they relate to the SDTC scandal.

I will do a quick recap for whose who are just tuning in. We know that the government took Sustainable Development Technology Canada and turned it into a green slush fund for Liberal insiders and friends. The Auditor General did a complete investigation on the governance of SDTC because a whistle-blower had come forward, and she found over 390 million dollars' worth of contracts had been given inappropriately by the board of directors, the members of which all had multiple conflicts of interest.

SDTC was a Crown corporation. It was fully funded by the taxpayers of Canada, and every person who served on that board of directors, including its CEO, was appointed by the government. The Liberal Minister of Industry individually appointed, through orders in council, all of those directors. It should be noted, as a former chair of the environment committee who worked closely with SDTC, that the organization had worked perfectly until 2017.

The former minister of industry, Navdeep Bains, is no longer a member of the House. He was hired by Rogers and is making a pile of money there. In 2017, he fired the existing chair and board at SDTC and loaded it up with Liberal friends and insiders, many of whom had already received grants through Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

When the Auditor General started doing her research, she found that there was $58 million involved. We are not talking about pennies here. This makes ad scam look like nickel-and-dime stuff. This was $58 million that was rewarded on 10 ineligible projects. She found another $334 million, in 186 cases, of money that was given to projects in which the nine board members had a conflict of interest and never recused themselves from the decision-making process. For almost 59 million dollars' worth of projects, there was no contribution agreement or terms that were met.

The Auditor General made it clear that the failure of this is that of the Liberal Minister of Industry, who did not follow through on his oversight or make sure governance was followed. He turned a blind eye when they found out that they were actually handing out money to Liberal insiders. We know that the Minister of Environment was tied to Cycle Capital, one of the companies that was receiving grants from SDTC, and we know that there was a board member on that fund who was also with Cycle Capital. He said that his shares increased by 1,000% after receiving SDTC funding. The Minister of Environment benefited as well. That is corruption at its core.

We also know that, yesterday, the RCMP opened up its investigation into the nine directors identified by the Auditor General in the SDTC green slush fund scandal.

Should we be at all surprised by this? This is a Liberal government that has always been ethically challenged. It is plagued by scandal, and the Liberals have a culture of corruption. All I have to do is go back. I mentioned ad scam from 2004. I was elected in 2004, and we were dealing with the ad scam fallout back then, but we have witnessed it going on and on as we have moved forward.

Let us not forget the SNC-Lavalin scandal in 2019, where the Prime Minister put pressure on his justice minister at the time, Jody Wilson-Raybould, to approve contracts for, and also provide a pardon to, SNC-Lavalin so that it could tender and bid on government contracts again. She said no, and the Prime Minister fired Jody Wilson-Raybould because she would not follow his word.

She did her job as the Attorney General of Canada to make sure that the law was respected and that these individuals would not be given a free pass for their fraudulent activities in other countries and here in Canada. We know that the Prime Minister was found in violation by the Ethics Commissioner for putting undue pressure on Jody Wilson-Raybould. Of course, that was not the first time he was found in violation of our ethics rules. It was only the second time, but he is the first Prime Minister in history to face an ethics scandal.

We look back on the WE scandal of 2020, and here we had the Liberals trying to shovel over half a million dollars into the hands of their friends at the WE Charity. Luckily, we were able to get that stopped, but we found out that Liberal insiders, including Bill Morneau, who is the former minister of finance, was actually tied directly back to the WE Charity. His daughter worked for the WE Charity, and he was in there advocating, not recusing himself from decision-making processes.

We look at all the foreign interference that has taken place and the blind eye that has been given by these Liberals on what is happening. The arrive scam is another one where, again, we had millions and millions of dollars going into the pockets of two guys. We found out later that the ArriveCAN app could have been set up for about $80,000. We are talking about $54 million-plus that was used by these individuals to enrich themselves because they were tied directly to Liberal insiders.

Let us not forget about the Winnipeg lab documents in 2021, which started in 2020. The House requested and ordered for the production of documents. The government stalled that and blocked it. It even took the Speaker to court to try to stop the production of these documents, which showed, when we did receive them finally this year, that the two scientists in question were actually operatives for the People's Liberation Army in Beijing. The documents also showed that viruses and intel on different vaccines were shipped to China, and who knows what other security breaches happened at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. The Liberals were too scared to let the public see it. They were so scared in 2021 that, instead of providing those documents and having everything come out through the Supreme Court, they called an election. That, of course, broke Parliament and the process stopped.

I think that some of us over here would actually like these guys to call an election now so that we can have an election that would stop the documents from coming forward, if that is what the Liberals want to do. Then Canadians could make the decision on how badly they want to put the Liberals in the penalty box based upon the continued unethical behaviour and corruption that plagues their government.

I have mentioned that there has been ongoing ethical violations by the government as well. The Prime Minister was found guilty for taking a private vacation on billionaire island and using an unsanctioned aircraft. We know that Bill Morneau was found out in the WE scandal, and he had to resign over it. We know that the public safety minister has been found guilty by the Ethics Commissioner on two different occasions, including awarding family members clam contracts in one of the Crown corporations. He was also found guilty of having his sister-in-law, I believe, made interim ethics commissioner. How could he be unbiased when they are family members? It would make for interesting family gatherings, such as Christmas supper. We also have the trade minister, who went and gave her BFF and campaign manager contracts directly out of her office without tendering them out at all, and she was found in violation of the ethics rules.

Now we have the Liberals obstructing our parliamentary process. They are also obstructing justice. Will they turn these documents over to the RCMP? I doubt it. They are going to claim some sort of cabinet secrecy. We have to make sure that the rules of this place, our parliamentary procedure, our Constitution, our charter, even the British North America Act, are respected. That is the last thing the Liberals are doing.

The Liberals keep claiming that the issue is all about charter rights, but I will repeat what the leader of the Conservative Party said yesterday. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is designed to protect the people from the government, not provide a cover for the government to hide documents from the people. We have to recognize that the supremacy of our democratic institution, the Parliament of Canada, is the overall legislative body that writes the rules, writes the laws and directs our justice system, not the other way around. The Liberals are always trying to tilt the discussion.

If we look at the rules, we see that Standing Order 108(1)(a) gives the power to the House of Commons, to committees and to Parliament, to order the production of papers. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, which we often call Bosc and Gagnon, chapter 3, page 137, says this about Parliament:

The only limitations, which could only be self-imposed, would be that any inquiry should relate to a subject within the legislative competence of Parliament, particularly where witnesses and documents are required and the penal jurisdiction of Parliament is contemplated. This dovetails with the right of each House of Parliament to summon and compel the attendance of all persons within the limits of their jurisdiction.

It goes on to say:

The power to send for persons, papers and records has been delegated by the House of Commons to its committees in the Standing Orders. It is well established that Parliament has the right to order any and all documents to be laid before it which it believes are necessary for its information....The power to call for persons, papers and records is absolute....

It is absolute, yet the Liberals here continue to avoid, dither, delay and deflect rather than comply with an order of the House.

The Speaker came to the conclusion that a prima facie question of privilege has been established, which is what we are in here debating today and have been debating all week. The Speaker said, “The procedural precedents and authorities are abundantly clear. The House has the undoubted right to order the production of any and all documents from any entity or individual it deems necessary to carry out its duties.”

A majority of duly elected hon. members from across the country are calling on the government to deliver. I wonder whether we are going to see the Liberals try to block the process again, either by taking the Speaker back to court because they do not respect Parliament or by proroguing and stopping all processes again? It is possible, and it is something we are all wondering about.

However, if the Liberals really think the issue should be something that the people of Canada should have a say on, then let us call an election. Then we can talk about things like the carbon tax and how it is impacting and hurting Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We can talk about how the Liberals' out-of-control and hug-a-thug policies have created crime and chaos on our streets, the worst we have ever seen. We can talk about how the housing crisis is making it impossible for young Canadians to achieve the Canadian dream of owning their own home.

We can talk about how the reckless spending is breaking our country, driving up inflation and hurting employment right across this country, never mind that productivity is on the downturn, and that we are now making 50% less and the Americans are making 50% more than we are. That, to me, is troubling to say the least, because when the Liberals came to power, the financial situation in this country was strong; Canadians were making more money in the middle class than Americans were. Now we have fallen so far back because of the uncreative and negating policies that have hurt Canadians all over our country.

We know that this all came to light because of a whistle-blower who has come to committee. I want to read some quotes into the record. There are a couple that I think are really important. The first one states:

The true failure of the situation stands at the feet of our current government, whose decision to protect wrongdoers and cover up their findings over the last 12 months is a serious indictment of how our democratic systems and institutions are being corrupted by political interference.

This is by the Liberals themselves. We hear in here all the time that they are not at all trying to comply with the Auditor General's report or what the industry committee has said. They have not tried to comply with the order to produce the papers that are so necessary in getting to the bottom of what happened here, how their friends and Liberal insiders are getting rich while the rest of us continue to get poorer.

The testimony goes on to say:

...I think the current government is more interested in protecting themselves and protecting the situation from being a public nightmare. They would rather protect wrongdoers and financial mismanagement than have to deal with a situation like SDTC in the public sphere.

Again, the issue is not being brought out into the open. If we want to talk about transparency, we know that sunlight is the best disinfectant, so let the sun shine in. Open up the louvres, and maybe we could get the sunlight down here and have some actual truth and honesty coming from the Liberal government.

The whistle-blower goes on to say:

I know that the federal government, like the minister, has continued saying that there was no criminal intent and nothing was found, but I think the committee would agree that they're not to be trusted on this situation. I would happily agree to whatever the findings are by the RCMP, but I would say that I wouldn't trust that there isn't any criminality unless the RCMP is given full authority to investigate.

As we know now, the RCMP is going to do its job and get down to the bottom of the issue.

When we look at the scandal, we see that SDTC had its hands on about $100 million a year of taxpayer money to hand out to help new start-up companies bring in new sustainable projects and new technologies, helping Canadians with bringing in some new technologies to deal with everything from waste water to greenhouse gas emissions and new software programs that would help reduce waste in our homes. However, because of the political interference from Navdeep Bains when he was minister of industry, by the Order in Council appointments that were made through him by the current Prime Minister and his Liberal cabinet, individuals came in and ultimately enriched themselves.

The key problem in all of this is that the SDTC executives who were put in as Liberal insiders decided that, instead of helping out other companies, they would enrich themselves. They decided to help their own companies and grant themselves their own government funds, which is a complete violation of proper governance and is criminality. The former minister of industry decided to willfully turn a blind eye, and the Liberals have been trying to cover up ever since.

Therefore I do not think any of us are surprised that we are here again having to try to convince the government to come clean, produce the documents, and allow Parliament to do the work it is elected to do and for the government to be held to account. Anything else we are seeing here is simply called a cover-up.

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

Madam Speaker, what is very clear is that for the Conservative Party of Canada, this is nothing but a game. That is the truth. If we listen to what the member opposite is saying, in his conclusions he virtually said that we should call an election. Then he went on about the slogans, the four bumper stickers.

The issue here before us is to allow the matter to go to the procedure and house affairs committee. Instead of that, the Conservatives want to filibuster.

The issue with respect to the content is this: If we ignore what the RCMP and the Auditor General have said, which is that they are highly concerned about the tactic the Conservative Party is using, then I could understand why they would be pushing for it. There is no justification. Let the standing committee deal with it. Why play the game? The people who are paying the price of this Conservative game are Canadians.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is once again standing up here working as the government's mouthpiece to deflect, delay, dither and essentially try to make false arguments. The RCMP and the Auditor General have never said anything of the sort, naming any party. That is complete misinformation coming from the member.

We need to also understand that Parliament is the supreme power in this country. As the rules state, as our Constitution dictates, there is nothing we undertake here that will be, in any way, impeding an investigation done by the RCMP.

I am glad to see that the RCMP is investigating. One of our slogans, if we want to talk about slogans, is “Stop the crime.” Here we have the Liberals being complicit in a crime and helping with the cover-up of the illegal activities of the SDTC board of directors.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. The Bloc Québécois agrees with the privilege motion we are discussing today. The government needs to be transparent. It has to be accountable and provide the information we need to be able to make decisions. That is our role.

My colleague speaks as though the Conservative Party of Canada is full of people who are always honest who have never had any problems. We know that Quebec's motto is “I remember”. I would like to remind members of some noteworthy things that happened when the Conservative Party was in power. Today, it is in the opposition. Conservatives seem to think they are perfect and have a monopoly on common sense. I will remind them what common sense means.

In 2009, Richard Colvin, a former Canadian diplomat, had information on Afghan detainees transferred by Canada who were at risk of being tortured. We are talking about human rights; it is not a trivial matter. The Harper government, at the time, refused to give parliamentarians access to those documents. The same question of privilege we are discussing today was raised then. The Harper government refused to conduct independent inquiries. Peter Milliken, who was the Speaker of the House at the time, finally authorized the transfer of documents because everything had been redacted. We had access to nothing. It is funny, when the Conservatives are in opposition, they are the ones who are masters of transparency.

I would like my colleague to explain to me how Quebeckers and Canadians can have confidence in them given this disastrous record.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to listen to my colleague from the Bloc defend Liberal corruption. To answer his question on Afghan detainees, because I was here during that time, the government does have the power to limit access on things that affect national security and national defence. SDTC has nothing at all to do with anything other than Liberal embarrassment. With respect to the Afghan detainee issue, we did put in place a process that allowed members to actually look at the secret documents and report back if they saw anything that fulfilled any of the allegations that were being made by other parties.

Stéphane Dion and Laurie Hawn spent months going through thousands and thousands of pages of classified, top-secret documents on the activity of the Canadian Armed Forces as it related to Afghan detainees, and they came back with a nil report. There was no evidence other than allegations that were made through partisan interests.

I would also say that the rules are clear on this in Bosc and Gagnon; the House, as well as the Speaker, will recognize when there is information that could hurt the overall national security of the country.

I would say that the argument being brought forward from my friend in the Bloc does not hold water.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was kind of rich, I thought, that the parliamentary secretary talked about filibustering, when he has been up speaking on the very same motion and taking up time in the debate.

I talk to my father and to so many other Canadians who are so worried about the lack of transparency and the waste of taxpayers' dollars. They just want to know where their money is. They are so tired of the corruption with the current government.

I would like the member to comment on how important it is to restore trust in our democratic institutions, in our government. By covering things up, the government is continuing to tear down our democratic institutions.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, even the deputy minister of industry is saying that the money taken, potentially criminally but illegitimately, by Liberal insiders at SDTC should be paid back. We have not heard that from the Liberals at all.

On the issue of transparency, if the Liberals want to be transparent, they can turn the documents over today. However, no, they would rather sit here. As the member mentioned, the Liberal member for Winnipeg North, who has spoken more words in this chamber than all the rest of us combined, filibusters the most in this place. He has the gift of gab, but nobody has spoken so much and said so little.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for laying out the timeline of what has occurred in this corruption and scandal.

I want to ask the member about something he touched on his intervention with respect to Parliament being supreme. The government is not fulfilling the will of Parliament. The government is discounting the authority and will that we as parliamentarians have given the government direction on.

Does it put questions in people's mind as to the functioning of our Parliament when the government is not following the will of Parliament?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague and friend from Kelowna—Lake Country.

Canadians are concerned about transparency. They are concerned about the attack on democratic institutions. When we have the behaviour by the Liberal government of cover-up and corruption, bringing more polarization to this House because it refuses to comply with an order of the democratically elected Speaker of the democratic House of Commons, of course Canadians are going to question whether the House of Commons, our Parliament and our democracy are at risk.

I cannot stress enough that the Liberals have a choice. They can either continue to cover up their corruption and to try to talk this out, or do the right thing, which is comply with the order of the House so that they are not found in violation of privilege. If they are so concerned about it, they can turn the vote on the prima facie breach of privilege into a confidence motion so we can have an election to end this attack on our democratic institutions.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my intervention with a quote: “It’s hard not to feel disappointed in your government when every day there is a new scandal.” These are the prophetic words of the hon. member for Papineau, our current Prime Minister of Canada, and how true those words ring today.

After nine years of scandal, corruption and Liberal entitlement, the business of the House has been put on hold to discuss a new scandal of monumental proportions, the green slush fund. The government did not like that the former chair of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, was being publicly critical of its agenda, so it fired him and replaced him with one of its friends. This replacement was known to the government as holding blatant conflicts, as she had interest in companies receiving funding from SDTC.

The PMO, the PCO and the minister were warned about these conflicts and the risks involved, but they appointed her anyway. The new chair went on to create an environment where conflicts of interest were tolerated and managed by board directors. What ensued was the creation of a slush fund for Liberal insiders.

The Auditor General found that SDTC gave out 390 million taxpayer dollars in inappropriate contracts. This included $58 million for 10 projects that could not account for an environmental benefit or the development of green technology. In 180 cases, $334 million went to projects in which board members held a conflict of interest. All the while, senior Industry Canada officials witnessed these conflicts but did not intervene.

The Auditor General herself placed the blame directly on the industry minister, who did not sufficiently monitor the contracts that were being given out. The minister was going further than that. He was actively covering up the existence of these shady deals.

Where he failed, this side of the House attempted to deliver some form of accountability for taxpayer money. Before adjourning for the summer, the House adopted a motion calling for documents related to SDTC to be turned over to the RCMP for review. At no point in the motion did it say that the instructions were optional. At no point did it instruct the government to redact information. As we know, the House enjoys the absolute and unbound power to order the production of documents, period.

The Speaker found that the government's refusal to properly comply with the House order constituted a breach of privilege. That is our government. This was not a simple mistake by the NDP-Liberal government. It was a calculated manoeuvre to avoid the discovery of any potential criminal activity that may have occurred under the government's watch.

The SDTC whistle-blower had suggested as much. They admitted that the Auditor General's investigation only scraped the surface and that if her investigation was focused on the real intent of those transactions, “of course they would find” criminal activity.

Let us thank goodness for the breaking news yesterday: The RCMP has announced that it will be investigating. Of course, it has full authority to substantiate any criminal activities that occurred within this organization. The fact that the NDP-Liberals have tried to cover them up and prevent Parliament from shining a light on these transactions is a serious indictment of their disdain for our democratic system.

For the sake of our country and our reputation around the world, I wish the green slush fund was the only case of corruption and disrespect for Parliament. It has now been two Speakers who have ordered the government to produce documents requested by the House, by this Parliament, and on both occasions, the Liberals have failed to do so.

The former Speaker found that the Liberals breached parliamentary privilege when they refused to produce House-ordered documents regarding the transfer of the Ebola and Henipah viruses from the Winnipeg lab to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the subsequent revocation of security clearances of two Chinese nationals. The Conservatives wanted to know why two scientists with deep connections to the Chinese military were even able to obtain high-level Canadian security clearances and conduct work with dangerous viruses. What was the government's reaction? It thumbed its nose at Parliament. The Conservatives ensured that the president of the Public Health Agency was called to the bar of the House of Commons to be reprimanded by the Speaker, something that Parliament had not done in over 100 years.

Also, in relation to the pandemic, the Prime Minister decided to use the pandemic for his own partisan gain. Canadians did not want an election in 2021, but he decided to call one anyway based on differences of opinion between the Liberals and Conservatives on how the pandemic should be managed. He thought he could wedge Canadians. For the Prime Minister, it was his way or the highway. The Prime Minister rolled the dice and Canadians said “no way”.

He failed to get a majority but destroyed many people's lives in the process. He verbally abused and wrongfully accused, and he denied culpability for the physical, mental and financial harms inflicted on Canadians. He also realized that he could not make COVID vaccines his supposed ticket to a majority government if our Canadian Armed Forces members were not fully vaccinated, so he ordered our serving members to be put through a horrific process of mandates, restrictions and punishment, which left our ranks depleted, our men and women in uniform demoralized and many seriously injured. The ramifications of his decisions will be felt in our armed forces for years to come.

Like a mantra, the Liberals continually said on that side of the floor that every decision they were making throughout the pandemic was rooted in science and that they depended on medical professionals because they themselves were not. However, here, too, the Liberals went over the heads of all parliamentarians, over the head of the Speaker and even over the head of the professional House of Commons nurse by denying members of the House the ability to do their jobs in this place on behalf of their constituents.

When it came to vaccination status and precinct access, the Liberals pushed aside the medical professional, the nurse. The Speaker ruled that she was the only one with the professional medical authority to make public health decisions for members of Parliament and House of Commons staff. The Speaker also ruled that the Board of Internal Economy had overstepped its mandate in its vaccine requirements in this place. That is when the Prime Minister, for overt personal political purposes, blatantly overrode the scientifically supported public health decisions of the House medical professional and took his own Liberal Speaker to court for daring to do his job without partisan, political interference.

Then there was a time I will never forget: the first debate I participated in, which sought to remove the government's accountability to this House. It was in regard to an environmental framework. That bill sought to give sweeping power to the minister and accountability to an advisory board. Today, with the green slush fund, we are certainly hearing how well it works out for us when one minister thinks a bit too much of himself.

Somewhat alarmed over this, I questioned the freshly minted member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country about this board. What was it going to look like? How many people would be on it? Where were they going to come from and what would their credentials be to give Canadians confidence? What would their mandate be? How long would they serve? I asked questions like that, while the member could not wait to rise and say that the board had already been chosen. With debate barely initiated in this House, the deed was already done.

From the green slush fund to the government's management of the pandemic to the obsession with appointing oversight bodies with little or no accountability to Parliament, the Liberals have a very unhealthy tendency to take more and more rights and responsibilities away from opposition parties in the House and give more and more power to ministers and outside governing bodies that are not accountable to this place.

Within his very first year of winning the incredible honour and privilege of being first servant to Canadians, Prime Minister, the Prime Minister said, “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,” and he concluded that he sees Canada as “the first postnational state.” This was at the beginning of serving this place and serving Canadians. I do not think he went to Canadians on that.

These are all ideologies, behaviours and conscious decisions that are made by the government and the Prime Minister to obscure and deny the depth of their political corruption. These are decisions that are made with no regard for what is best for Canada. Parliament is just an inconvenience for the Prime Minister, and it always has been.

Only common-sense Conservatives will end the NDP-Liberal corruption. We will end their attack on Canada's sovereignty, on our institutions, on our way of life, on our democracy and on our rule of law. On behalf of Canadians, the Conservative Party of Canada will also get the answers Canadians deserve. They are asking for answers, and they want them.

The member for Papineau, along with every member of the NDP-Liberal government, has absolutely failed in their duty to be accountable to Canadians, and Canadians have had enough. We keep hearing about how we need to listen to Canadians. Believe me, Madam Speaker, we have. They only have one thing that is absolutely top of mind, and that is to remove the Prime Minister and his corrupt government.

Taxes and costs are way up. Canadians cannot afford the basic things in life, and they are struggling. Crime is up by over 100% in many areas. What they are doing to this country is not progressive; it is regressive. It is destroying our nation, and Canadians are saying that the government's time is up.

The vast majority of Canadians want a carbon tax election, and for them, we will bring it home.

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

Madam Speaker, I get it. The member does not like the Prime Minister personally. If we listen to what she is talking about, she is using the issue of so-called corruption, or scandals, as a way to express a great deal of frustration towards the Prime Minister.

However, I will remind the member that, when we talk about scandals, Stephen Harper and the Conservative government take it by a country mile. I referred to this earlier today. We can talk about the anti-terrorism scandal, the Phoenix scandal, the G8 spending scandal, the ETS scandal, the F-35 scandal, the Senate scandal or the multiple election scandals.

These are all things that her holier-than-thou Conservative Party, with Stephen Harper as its leader, was deeply engaged in. Unfortunately, it was not until the last couple of years that Stephen Harper actually came up with the Ethics Commissioner. He was so pathetic when he was Prime Minister that he had to try to justify himself and show that he did have ethics. That is one of the reasons he brought it into place a couple of years before he actually left office; I should say that he was kicked out.

Stephen Harper drove the economy, in particular our manufacturing industry, into the economy; many other things motivated Canadians to kick Stephen Harper out of office. Does the member have any thoughts in terms of how unethical the Conservative government was?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am a mom and a grandma.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

It is awesome, is it not? However, Madam Speaker, I can guarantee everyone in the House that, when one of my kids was out of line, I did not let them try to redirect. The current government is in power, and I can assure the member across the floor that every Canadian is hypersensitive to and hyperaware of the shenanigans of the government.

I know that, in this place, we cannot say people lie. I still think that we will never truly represent Canadians in this place when that is allowed, and to the extent that it happens, it means that debate in the House is not real. What came out of that member's mouth was not accurate. However, what they are doing clearly is because they are before their own Speaker; they are being challenged by the RCMP left and right and being investigated. This is because they are doing things untruthfully.

When we can stand in this place and say those things, I know that it is just reinforcing in the hearts and minds of Canadians that the Liberal government has to go.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, we know that a request has been made to produce documents for the RCMP.

The RCMP, if it wishes, has the ability to obtain a warrant to go out and get information and conduct investigations. In contrast, the only power the House has is granted it through Speaker's rulings or committee recommendations.

The role of the opposition parties is different from that of, say, the RCMP. Our role is to hold the government to account and to let the public know where things stand, and this burden is perhaps different from that of a criminal investigation where the RCMP might get involved.

I would like my colleague to talk about the importance of the role the opposition parties play in the House and the fact that the government is not making it possible for us to carry out that role.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, yes, we have the privilege and the responsibility in this place to call for those documents, to demand those documents. That is what we are doing here in requiring the government to stop digging in its heels and pretending that it does not have to respond the way every other government has needed to respond in these kinds of circumstances. I am sorry, but there is no way that we should ever let up on requiring the government to do what has been demanded by the House.