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.