Debates of Oct. 7th, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to talk about Stephen Harper under beds. That is too much for me to grasp on a Monday morning.

[An hon. member]

The ghost of Harper.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I do not care if it is a ghost or him or whatever. You can have the ghost. It is all good; I know it was in jest anyway.

Mr. Speaker, we got to this place before with the Afghan detainee documents that were not released by the Conservatives, and now we have this situation. One of the solutions for Parliament is updating Crown copyright. It is important to preface by saying that Crown copyright is the privileged access Canadians get to documents, information and research that should be made publicly available on a regular basis. Canada is one of the Commonwealth nations that has not updated this. All the others have. In fact, our laws go back to the early 1900s and have rarely been reviewed. The United States does not have this problem.

Why are the Conservatives still opposed to updating Crown copyright? We could have done that and it would have prevented a lot of this mess right now. I would like to see that done. If the Conservatives would agree, we could get that done and get some of the documents sooner.

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

Mr. Speaker, unlike so many of the questions today, I believe it is a very sincere and legitimate question.

I am not going to purport to be an expert on Crown copyright. I know next to nothing about it. I am certainly prepared to take my hon. colleague's suggestion under advisement because, frankly, I would need to get up to speed before I could provide a fulsome answer. I am not prepared to venture into something I am really not as knowledgeable about as I would like to be before answering that question.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 61 to concur in the 31st report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and at the conclusion of the time provided for debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motions be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.

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

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes said, “Here we go again”, debating yet another breach of privilege by the Liberal government.

The Liberals' continued refusal to comply with parliamentary orders shows their complete lack of respect for this institution and parliamentarians. As frustrating as this is, it is not surprising. After all, on July 25, 1969, during the debate on a motion to adjourn the House, it was reported that Pierre Elliott Trudeau made the following statement regarding the opposition: “When they get home, when they get out of Parliament, when they are 50 yards from Parliament Hill, they are no longer hon. members-they are just nobodies”.

I can confirm for members today that the apple has not fallen far from the tree. Right from the beginning, with “elbowgate”; with Motion No. 6, which would have given the Liberals new powers to control the business of the House and was described by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby as both “fundamentally anti-democratic” and a sign of the “greater disrespect that we've seen developing now for the last few weeks” and also described as a “completely undemocratic move to take away the tools we [opposition members] have to express our differences” by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle; or with the Liberals' attempt to exploit the pandemic by introducing legislation that would have allowed the Liberals to carry on for almost two years with no parliamentary oversight, the Prime Minister’s disregard for parliamentarians in opposition and the rules that govern this place is obvious.

According to Standing Order 108(1)(a), parliamentary committees hold special powers to summon people and order the production of documents. It states:

Standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, to report from time to time, and except when the House otherwise orders, to send for persons, papers and records, to sit while the House is sitting, to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned, to sit jointly with other standing committees, to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by them, and to delegate to subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House.

These powers are essential as they allow parliamentary committees to conduct important work. These powers are fundamental to the proper functioning of Parliament. When the government obstructs the work of committees by unlawfully refusing to provide documents or providing them heavily redacted, it is insulting not only Parliament but Canadians, who have sent representatives to this place to be their voice and hold the government accountable.

The Liberal government has a pattern of trying to obstruct the work of Parliament and its committees by refusing to hand over documents, and it is regularly supported by the NDP in this regard.

In fact, during our study at the government operations and estimates committee of the government’s contracts with McKinsey, Conservatives called for unredacted documents from government departments related to those contracts. Nearly every department sent either heavily redacted documents or no documents at all. This included the Department of National Defence, the Department of Natural Resources, Export Development Canada, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the Canada Development Investment Corporation, the Department of Employment and Social Development, the Department of Finance, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Business Development Bank of Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, the Canada Post Corporation and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and it was all led by the Prime Minister’s own department, the Privy Council Office.

Thirteen government departments, agencies and Crown corporations refused to comply with a motion passed at a parliamentary committee. These departments, led by the Privy Council Office, denied the supremacy of Parliament, stating that they were able to decide what documents Parliament was entitled to have, granting themselves far-reaching and unconstitutional powers.

When we tried to escalate the issue to the House to force the departments to provide the unredacted documents, the Liberals filibustered, claiming that there was nothing to see and we were wasting our time. They convinced the NDP, their staunchest supporters in this place, to yet again bail them out and shut down our document request, hiding vital information about these contracts from Canadians. This was despite the fact the law clerk was brought to committee to provide the legal basis for parliamentary powers and provided the following testimony:

As the grand inquisitor of the nation, the House of Commons has the right to institute and conduct inquiries, as well as to send for papers and records. These rights are part of the House of Commons' privileges, immunities and powers—oftentimes referred to as parliamentary privilege—that are constitutional in nature, as they are rooted in section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as well as in its preamble.

These rights, including the constitutional nature of parliamentary privilege and the fundamental role of the House of Commons and its committees, have been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada.

There is no limit to the right of the House of Commons and of its committee[s] to order the production of documents, providing that the documents are available in paper or electronic format and are in Canada. This power is subject only to the exceptions and limits explicitly stipulated by Parliament, the House of Commons or its committees.

In a later intervention, he reiterated the following:

You asked me to explain and clarify the right of the House and its committees to send for papers and records.

This right to send for papers and records is one of the parliamentary privileges that the House of Commons and its committees have. This power is constitutional in nature, and it is subject only to the limitation that Parliament, the House or the committees will impose on themselves.

When requesting documents, sometimes a committee may be faced with a confidentiality claim. In such circumstances, the committee may decide to put measures in place to protect sensitive information; it may decide to no longer insist on its production order; or it may decide to insist on its production order and insist on the production of documents unredacted. Ultimately, it's for the committee to decide what option it wants to choose.

Despite our protests and the rules that supported our request, Conservatives were outvoted by the NDP-Liberal coalition and our study of McKinsey was stalled, with the NDP once again covering for the scandal-ridden Liberal government.

However, the Liberals' victory was short-lived with the Auditor General tabling her report earlier this year, which found that contracts should have never been awarded to McKinsey in the first place. The Liberals had, yet again, inappropriately given a sweetheart deal to a company being run by a close friend of the Prime Minister. This may have come to light earlier if the NDP had not helped the Liberals with obstructing the work of our committee. Instead, even to this day, we still have not received these documents. By allowing the bureaucrats to defy our order, the Liberals were successful in denying our committee access to the documents and keeping us, and indeed all Canadians, from seeing what they were trying to hide.

In the case of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, the facts are even more startling. Hundreds of millions of dollars were given to Liberal insiders by hand-picked board members who had conflicts of interest related to the companies being given taxpayer dollars. The Auditor General found 186 cases of conflict of interest by board members. These board members were allowed to vote to give taxpayer dollars to companies they had an interest in 186 times and the government did nothing. It did not ask any questions or check up on who was sending money where; it just allowed the board members to give money to anyone they wanted to. It turned out they were sending money to companies they were involved with.

The 186 instances of conflict of interest involved $334 million. Even more concerning is that the Auditor General did not get through all the cases. This means there could be hundreds of millions of dollars more that have been given to companies that the Liberal insiders have an interest in.

Canadians deserve answers, and parliamentarians need to see what other egregious corruption is hidden in the documents. For now, we know that $334 million was spent without any oversight and without any accountability, and now it is gone. Canadians are left footing the bill. Can we expect the Liberal government to get the money back, or that the wrongdoers will be held accountable? Probably not. The government will continue to sweep th e issue under the rug, chalk it up to the cost of governing and move on, much like it did with arrive scam, which it still has not recovered any money from.

In fact, it is no wonder we will see no accountability from the scamster board members, given that a current minister used to work for one of the most prolific of them; the current Minister of Environment worked for Cycle Capital, a company that benefited greatly from SDTC grants. He was, in fact, its lobbyist. While working as its lobbyist, he managed to secure $111 million in grants for it before he was elected, and he still holds shares in the company to this day, as was pointed out by my colleague, the member for South Shore—St. Margarets.

The practice of funnelling hundreds of millions of dollars to companies that Liberal insiders have a vested interest in is a deeply disturbing pattern with the government. It is actually corrupt. We saw it with McKinsey, with over $100 million in contracts being inappropriately awarded while a close friend of the Prime Minister, Dominic Barton, was the chairman. We saw it with Rio Tinto having been given $222 million just five months after the same Dominic Barton was appointed as its chairman.

We saw it with arrive scam, with tens of millions of dollars going to middlemen who did no actual work. We saw it with the $237-million contract given to the company of a former Liberal MP, Frank Baylis, for ventilators that were later sold for scrap metal. We see it with the purchase of the $9-million luxury condo on Billionaires' Row for the Prime Minister's media buddy Tom Clark in New York City.

Time and time again, Liberal insiders get rich at the expense of Canadians and are shielded from any accountability by Liberal members of Parliament and their NDP coalition. While the Liberals have been creative in finding ways to abuse taxpayers' dollars to ensure that they find their way into the pockets of their friends, they have also shown themselves to be uniquely corrupt and untrustworthy. When the government and its bureaucrats hide the documents by refusing to provide them or by heavily redacting them, they not only insult the House and infringe on the privilege of its members but they also place themselves above the Constitution and the very foundation of our parliamentary system.

While it has become commonplace under the Liberal government, with new scandals coming to light week after week, Canadians need reassurance. They need to be reassured that the corruption is not normal and that this is not the way government is meant to work. Government is meant to work for the people, for Canadians.

This will not be how things are run when Conservatives form the next government. That is actually why Conservatives have brought forward the motion that calls upon the House to:

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

It intentionally includes:

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

contribution and funding agreements to which SDTC is a party;

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

SDTC conflict of interest declarations;

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

all briefing notes, memoranda, emails or any other correspondence exchanged between SDTC directors and SDTC management;

provided that,

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

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.

Canadians deserve a government that respects Parliament and its fundamental role and powers. They deserve a government that will be transparent and accountable. They deserve opposition members who do their duty in holding the government to account. They deserve a government that will respect taxpayers' dollars. Canadians deserve an end to the corruption, and it is time for a change. Conservatives are ready to provide the kind of leadership and government that Canadians deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, for those who are following the debate, I think it is important to recognize that SDTC was, in fact, an arm's-length organization there to support Canadian industry in a very environmentally friendly way. Annette Verschuren was the chair of that board, and she was someone who was actually appointed to Stephen Harper's economic advisory council during 2008 and was an adviser to Brian Mulroney.

There is no doubt that something has gone wrong. That is the reason why the government took swift action upon learning about it, to the degree that two independent audits were done on it. We are supporting the Auditor General. There has been a freeze on the funding. The board has been replaced. The government has taken action on the issue. For the Conservatives to label it as corruption and tie it to the Liberal Party is just wrong.

Part of the problem is that the Conservatives continue to spread misinformation to try to get wedge issues at the cost of what I would suggest was an organization, not the board but the organization, that did so much for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, while there was no question there, I will repeat what many of my colleagues have pointed out, and that is that five years ago, it was a Liberal minister who appointed the board of directors of SDTC, and he and the Liberals need to take responsibility for the appointments and what has ensued since.

While the member obfuscates on the issue of ignoring parliamentary privilege, Canadians are struggling. There are hundreds of tent cities cropping up across this country, and millions of people are lining up at food banks. What is obvious during the debate is that the Liberal government's priority is to continue to line the pockets of its Liberal insider friends and then go on to cover it up.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about this. Of course it is unacceptable that the government is refusing to comply with an order of the House to produce documents. We have heard allegations that this also happened with previous Conservative governments.

I would like to know whether my colleague has any ideas about what we can do to prevent this type of situation from happening again.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, when Conservatives formed government in 2006, we brought in the Federal Accountability Act, which was to clean up the mess left behind by the previous scandal-ridden Liberal government. However, I would have to admit that no member of Parliament could have foreseen the blatant corruption and disregard for Parliament that the government has shown over the past nine years.

I believe we will need to take a very hard look at how the current government has subverted parliamentary practice and procedures time and time again, and determine how we can prevent this kind of corruption in the future.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly simple question. I read through the motion and the amendment, and essentially the motion is to refer the government's refusal to produce the documents to committee and to direct the committee to call certain witnesses. The implication is that the committee's work is what would lead to greater accountability and get Canadians the answers that they deserve on this important matter.

If that is the case, and assuming that Canadians deserve those answers as quickly as possible, why would we not vote on the motion, refer it to committee so the witnesses could be called, and undertake that important work so we could get answers as quickly as possible? I do not understand the rationale or the strategy for drawing out the debate for days when the actual work should be done at committee.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, of course my colleague was not sitting on the government operations and estimates committee when the committee was seized with a very similar situation, where we were calling for unredacted documents from a number of departments within government in order to be able to get to the bottom of the contracts that were awarded to McKinsey.

It was the member's own colleague from Courtenay—Alberni who voted with the Liberals to ensure that the committee could no longer do its work. I am not convinced that the NDP at this point in time, especially with its coalition with the Liberals, would actually allow the work to be done in committee. Instead of stating here that they are going to support the motion, and they are supporting it so I am not sure why he is concerned with the motion—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Actually it was the NDP that helped bring the motion to the floor of the chamber. In fact I did the intervention myself, along with the member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

That is a point of debate. I appreciate the clarification.

The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek has the floor.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps he could clarify that with his own colleague, who is asking why we are here today instead of referring it to committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been debating this issue for some time now. We said that we agree on the substance. We absolutely must ensure that the House's privilege is respected and that we get these documents. I have been listening carefully to the debate from my seat in the House and from the lobby. From what I understand, the Conservative Party is less interested in obtaining the documents than in stalling the work of the House.

We could vote on the motion, which would force the government to take action. If the Liberals do not produce the documents, then they will pay the political price. However, if the idea is that we should stay in the House until someone stands up and hands over the documents, then I have the feeling that we will be here for a very long time.

What is the Conservative Party's real goal? Is it to ensure that the House is respected and to obtain the documents, or is it to bring the work of the House to a halt and then claim that the government is not doing anything?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to quote what Michel Bédard said at committee when we were seized with the issue of not being able to get documents as called for:

The courts have recognized the existence of the power to send for records and papers. In parliamentary privilege jurisprudence, they have recognized that the exercise of the privilege itself is not something that is subject to court scrutiny. The manner in which the privilege is exercised is for Parliament alone to decide and, in recognizing the power to send for records and papers, they haven't set any limit to this privilege.

I would simply say to the member that the only people who are obstructing the documents from getting to this place and the work of Parliament being done are the Liberal members on the other side of the chamber.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think back to the early 2000s and the sponsorship scandal. It was one of the first things that made me understand how Liberals think and how they are always trying to put money into the pockets of their friends.

I wonder if the member could remind this House of some of the scandals similar to that which have occurred under the Liberal government, where it has demonstrated its innate response and innate ability to continue to take taxpayer money and use it in ways that it should not be used.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague is aware that it is a very long list. It is a very long list that has created deep concern for Canadians across this country, such as when we look at the arrive scam, when we look at the external contracting going to Liberal insiders and their friends, and when we look at the $9-million condo that was purchased for the Prime Minister's media buddy.

The list goes on and on when it comes to how the Liberal government is spending taxpayers' money and is not willing to be held accountable and transparent about what it is actually doing.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, sitting here and reflecting on the privilege motion before the House of Commons today reminds me of the 40th Parliament from 2008 to 2011. I was privileged to be in the chamber as a graduate student when the former governor general, Michaëlle Jean, gave her Speech from the Throne; and as an observer when papers were thrown in the air. Papers were thrown in the air because the former leader of the Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff, brought forward a motion to produce documents related to the F-35.

Through a debate at the procedure and House affairs committee, there was back and forth between the government and the official opposition at that time to determine what papers were in fact needed. However, behind that very debate was not the Conservative Party saying it was not going to comply with Parliament. No, the Conservatives wanted to work with the official opposition, but the Liberals then used it as a political ploy to go into an election. Thankfully, Canadians understood very clearly what Michael Ignatieff and the failed Liberals were trying to do, and that was to take advantage of their parliamentary powers to push forward an election. Thankfully, the Liberals were defeated in that election.

It raised a serious question for me as a graduate student at that time and as a former Canadian parliamentary intern: Why use the power of privilege only to defeat a government, when the very purpose of that privilege was to get to the bottom of what the government was doing at that time? That is an important historical point to raise here today. It seems that only Conservatives seem to be bothered by the hypocrisy we have seen from the Liberal Party once again.

Therefore, with that, the recent events surrounding the government's handling of the Sustainable Development Technology Canada, SDTC, program have brought this issue again to the forefront of our democratic discourse. That is the production of papers, the right of this very House to demand anything from the government that it so decides to do. That is the fundamental privilege of Parliament. Last week, the Speaker rightfully ruled on a question of privilege raised by the House leader of the official opposition. The Speaker's ruling confirmed what Conservatives have said all along, which is that the government violated the expansive powers of this very House by failing to surrender crucial records or papers related to Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

Let me take this time to remind members of the government's corrupt mishandling of the SDTC program, otherwise known as the green slush fund. This program was designed to support innovation in sustainable technologies. It was established in 2001. It operated with few issues under Liberal and Conservative governments until the current Prime Minister took office. Earlier this year, the Auditor General released a damning report. It revealed that $123 million had been misappropriated by the Liberal-appointed board of SDTC. The report outlined serious governance failures, including a staggering 90 instances where conflict of interest policies were not followed; nearly $76 million spent on projects connected to friends of Liberals who sat on the board; $59 million awarded to projects that were not eligible for funding; and $12 million spent on projects that not only fell into conflict of interest, but were also ineligible for funding based on the government's own criteria. This situation not only represents a betrayal of public trust, but also illustrates a significant failure in oversight by the current minister. We must ask ourselves, how can we ensure accountability in government if those in power are not held to the same standards we expect from others?

Conservatives have proven that the privileges of parliamentarians were violated by the government's refusal, which is why we are continuing to speak about the serious action the government has taken and indeed why the House is completely seized with this matter. This is not just a procedural misstep. It is a direct challenge to the very foundation of our parliamentary democracy. The Auditor General report made it clear that this scandal falls squarely on the shoulders of the current Liberal minister, who did not sufficiently monitor the contracts that were given to insiders. The minister even went so far as to suspend the SDTC board because he knew that he was in hot water and he took the correct action.

The government is unjustly infringing on the right to access these documents today.

To further understand the gravity of this situation, we must first reflect on the historical context of parliamentary privilege. Our rights and privileges as parliamentarians are not mere formalities. They are rooted in centuries of struggle against tyranny. As the British House of Commons gained eminence as a legislative assembly, it established privileges as statutes, as a part of common law aimed at protecting its members from interference, namely from the Crown.

Erskine May, a cornerstone reference in parliamentary procedure, defines parliamentary privilege as “the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions.” In other words, I cannot do my job, nor can any other member of Parliament do their job, if this privilege is compromised. This underscores that our privilege is essential for holding the government, the Crown, to account.

In Canada, we inherited the legacy of the U.K. through the Constitution Act of 1867, which enshrines our rights and privileges, ensuring that they are not exceeded by any authority outside of this House. The Parliament of Canada Act, 1985, further states that we retain the privileges not exceeding those “held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom”. In other words, we inherited that democratic tradition of Westminster parliamentary, responsible government. This is a powerful affirmation of our rights and responsibilities as members of this institution, drawing on hundreds of years of precedent that brings us here today.

Let us get back to the motion. In June, the opposition House leader tabled a motion asking for all files, documents, briefing notes, memoranda, emails and any other correspondence exchanged among government officials regarding SDTC. This motion was sent through, and SDTC and associated parties either redacted the documents, withheld the documents or outright refused to present the documents to the official opposition and to this Parliament. This is a clear violation of our collective parliamentary privilege.

In making his arguments, the opposition House leader referred to page 239 of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, which states:

Disobedience to rules or orders represents an affront to the dignity of the House, and accordingly the House could take action, not simply for satisfaction but to ensure that the House of Commons is held in the respect necessary for its authority to be vindicated. Without proper respect, the House of Commons could not function.

When the rules of parliamentary privilege in the House are disregarded, it undermines the authorities and powers the House can enact, and diminishes its ability to govern properly. Let us not forget it is not the government that decides which papers it must provide to Parliament; Parliament decides which papers it needs.

Without respecting the use of parliamentary privilege and obeying the orders of the House to produce and bring forward the requested documents, it displays a complete disregard of respect for the House, and its authority and duty to Canadians to provide them with accurate and transparent information.

In response to the House leader's motion, the Speaker confirmed the accusations that the government violated its powers. In his ruling, the Speaker referenced page 985 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, affirming that, “No statute or practice diminishes the fullness of that power rooted in House privileges unless there is an explicit legal provision to that effect”.

This clearly establishes the House has an inherent authority to compel the production of documents vital to our oversight functions. He went on to say that procedural precedents are abundantly clear. He said, “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.”

To strengthen his ruling about the absolute nature of power to order the production of documents, the Speaker referenced a ruling of Speaker Milliken from 2010. In the Debates at page 2043, we can find Speaker Milliken stating the following: “procedural authorities are categorical in repeatedly asserting the powers of the House in ordering the production of documents. No exceptions are made for any category of government document”. However, the government has argued that the order to produce these documents may infringe upon charter rights, particularly regarding police investigations and privacy.

The House leader has contended that this order exceeds the authority of the House by seeking documents for the exclusive use of a third party, namely the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This is a very wrong and dangerous interpretation by the government House leader. The House leader does not have the right to predetermine when documents can be disclosed. It is up to Parliament.

Even after the Conservatives have called out the House leader and the Liberal Party for their blatant violation of parliamentary privilege, the House leader still stands by her statement that the Conservative Party wants to infringe on the charter rights of Canadians. She has even gone on social media to spread the false narrative that the Conservatives are infringing on charter rights. She is using the charter as a shield against what would otherwise likely be a criminal investigation. How is finding out the truth about the mismanagement of this program an infringement on charter rights? What are the Liberals really trying to hide from Canadians?

It is essential to recognize that the House of Commons exists to hold the government accountable. The notion that the government can refuse compliance under the guise of protecting individual rights undermines the principles of transparency and accountability, which govern our democracy, have been clearly established by multiple Speakers and are, of course, written in the Constitution Act of Canada.

The privileges we enjoy today were established to protect the House and its members from the power of the Crown and other authorities. As noted by Enid Campbell in her analysis of parliamentary privilege in 1966, “the House of Lords and the House of Commons may investigate any matter whatsoever, however embarrassing the inquiry may be either to individuals or to the government of the day.” That is why we retain privilege.

We know that this whole charade is very damaging to the Liberal brand in Canada. I was a member of the industry committee when we conducted hearings with Annette Verschuren on her contract as board chair of SDTC, and there was a clear conflict of interest. We would think that with the new open and transparent appointment process, Ms. Verschuren would have been disqualified immediately from even sitting on the board, but we would think wrong.

When he was still in cabinet, former minister Bains ignored several warnings about her conflict of interest and proceeded with her appointment within three weeks of Balsillie's removal. With the arrival of Ms. Verschuren at SDTC, an environment was created in which conflicts of interest were tolerated and managed by the board. Board members would go on to award SDTC funding to companies in which they held stocks or positions. Former minister Bains also appointed five more board members, who engaged in unethical and illegal behaviour by approving funding to companies in which they held ownership or seats on the board. Officials from the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development sat on the board as observers and witnessed 96 conflicts of interest but did not intervene.

Former minister Bains was replaced in January 2021 by the current minister, and in November 2022, whistle-blowers began raising internal concerns with the Auditor General about the unethical practices they were seeing within the department. In February 2023, the Privy Council was briefed by whistle-blowers and commissioned two independent reports. In September of last year, the allegations became public, but it took the industry minister a month to agree to suspend funding for the organization. Then in November, the Auditor General announced that she would be conducting an audit of SDTC.

That brings us to today and the Liberals continuing to cover up the scandal by not tabling the documents that Parliament has requested. If the House cannot access the documents necessary to fulfill its duties, we are left vulnerable to government overreach and mismanagement. The ignorance of the government House leader surrounding parliamentary privilege has allowed the executive branch to resist transparency, and it is our duty to correct this.

In conclusion, I urge all of my colleagues to recommit to the principles of parliamentary privilege. The Liberals refusing to hand over all documents related to the green slush fund within 14 days is simply unacceptable. We must ensure that our House retains the authority to demand accountability from the government. We must also recognize that while certain information may need to be withheld for legitimate reasons, this should not be a blanket excuse for a lack of transparency.

The current situation is a wake-up call. It calls for a deeper understanding of our roles and responsibilities in the House. Canadians deserve a government that is accountable and transparent. It is why Conservatives will continue to hold the government accountable and call for a carbon tax election.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand the messaging the member is trying to get across. The Parliament of Canada is supreme in many different ways, but that does not justify walking over the Charter of Rights. It does not justify the actions the Conservative Party is taking.

The Conservatives are trying to say that the RCMP's opinion does not matter and that the Auditor General of Canada's opinion does not matter. We had a Conservative just the other day stand up and talk about how wonderful it was that we had a jail inside Centre Block at one time, and that Parliament should, in essence, be able to put someone directly from the bar into jail, walking over the Charter of Rights and the idea of innocent until proven guilty.

The Conservative appointed by Stephen Harper back in the day, the adviser to Brian Mulroney, ultimately became the chair of the board in question, and there will be a consequence for her, no double about that. However, I am concerned that the Conservative Party, in its games and its quest for an election, is walking all over a person's charter rights and freedoms. I find that disgraceful.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what is disgraceful is that the Liberal Party of Canada does not understand that Parliament, with its power to investigate any matter whatsoever, however embarrassing an inquiry may be to individuals or the government of the day, is the ruling authority of this country. Parliament rules supreme, and it is not for the government to predetermine how documents should be used when Parliament demands papers. No matter how embarrassing an investigation may be, Parliament will always retain its authority to request documents from the government because we are the ones who approve how the government spends money.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on September 16, the House leader of the official opposition questioned the Auditor General of Canada's role in this matter. He made several accusations against her and blatantly challenged what she had said and written on this matter.

Since the Auditor General is a highly respectable and respected individual within this Parliament, I would like my colleague to tell me whether he condones the Conservative House leader's comments.

At the same time, are disparaging remarks like these not responsible for the creeping dysfunction within this Parliament?