Madam Speaker, all political power is trust, and when the trust is broken, the power is lost. After nine years of this Liberal government, Canadians have lost trust in this government. To break down what this debate is for people at home, there is $400 million that was misspent in 186 cases of conflict of interest; there is accountability that this House demands; and when we look at the fact that this whole $400 million was supposed to be for creating jobs that Canadians desperately want and need, what it really comes down to in this debate today is a matter of privilege and trust.
The people in the committee demanded answers. Then in this House, we have demanded that the documents involved be submitted to the RCMP. The government has refused the absolute power of this House to give what the people asked for, which were documents related to conflict of interest and to the misspending of $400 million, and for that money, those documents and all the information therein to be given to those who investigate at the RCMP.
This debate here in the House is a matter of privilege. It is not about whether we should do the right thing and just send it to committee. The government was asked to do something by the people in the House of Commons and the government is refusing to do that. That is the debate we are having here today. There is an important saying that the Constitution was created not to protect the government from the people, but to protect the people from the government.
What is at stake here is accountability, the power of the House of Commons, and transparency and trust for all of government, not just the government that is in power. Parliamentary oversight is essential for accountability. The role of Parliament is to hold the government accountable. By refusing to comply with the House of Commons and produce documents, the government undermines this principle and sets a dangerous precedent for evading oversight.
Parliament is like the referee of a hockey game. Without it, the government would just try to score while breaking every rule in the book. Parliament is like the dentist to the government. They do not want to visit, but without it, things would rot fast. Parliament is like Simon Cowell to the government's talent show. They need to hear the harsh truth, whether they like it or not. Parliament is like one's mom checking their room after they cleaned it. The government might think they are off the hook, but Parliament is going to find the mess.
That is the power of government, and that is the power of Parliament. We call ourselves His Majesty's loyal opposition, and we take that role very seriously. As much as we hear today that the government does not like us making videos or talking on social media, that is our job at this point. We would love to be in government someday, and we talk to Canadians about what we might do differently, but the role we have here today is to hold the government to account and to find the mess.
In committees, we find that we work well with other parties when it comes to certain matters sometimes. When it comes to looking at accountability, in this instance, we will find in this House that it is not just the Conservatives but also the NDP and the Bloc members who have all come together and demanded accountability from the government.
To put it in another perspective, for those Canadians at home, what does that matter and what does that mean? Government's power and Parliament's power are absolute. We can talk about another procedure and we can talk about the charter, but nothing is more powerful than that absolute right from the House of Commons and a directive from the House of Commons.
This means that when the House of Commons comes together and asks for documents and for evidence, the government needs to provide those documents and that evidence. It is not a maybe; it is not a “can be”. To relate this to the government, let us look at what would happen if the CRA came to me and asked for my financial records and my taxes. However, if, instead of complying, I only gave them a few documents or maybe redacted documents and said I did not want CRA knowing about this part of my business or my personal life, what would happen? There would be fines, penalties and possible jail time. To Canadians at home, this House of Commons is the CRA to the government. This House of Commons has the power to ask for documents and it has to ensure that the government listens to that directive.
There is also the issue of respecting the rule of law on parliamentary privilege. The government's refusal to comply with a clear order of the House of Commons violates the rule of law and weakens the democratic process. If Parliament is to maintain its role as a guardian of democracy, it must stand firm in asserting its privileges. Today, all we hear from the government is, “Just send it to committee. There is the compromise. Just send it to committee.” The concern with that is that if we just send it to committee, we are just delaying this issue down the road. It has already happened and we are here only because it was delayed down the road.
This first came to light and the order was made back on June 10. On June 10, the government was asked to hand over to the RCMP what it had in its possession. I am just going to go over what was handed and what was not handed over because the government does say that it handed documents from some organizations and we have some of this documentation.
Well, yes, the Canada School of Public Service, Canada Energy Regulator, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Library and Archives Canada, and the Office of Privacy Commissioner have given full compliance, and there are a few others. Without redactions and with partial delayed compliance were the Department of Finance and Treasury Board Secretariat.
Then, we have redacted records. The redacted records are documents with a bunch of black on them. Sometimes, whole sheets are blacked out. We have Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency; Business Development Bank of Canada; Canada Revenue Agency; Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development; Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities; and Department of Justice, partial compliance by deadline, with one tranche deposited before transmission to the RCMP, another tranche deposited after transmittal and many documents withheld entirely; Department of National Defence; Department of Natural Resources, but limited scope of production to directors general and above; Department of Public Works and Government Services; Department of Western Economic Diversification; Export Development Canada; Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario; Pacific Economic Development Canada; Privy Council Office; Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council; Standards Council of Canada; and Sustainable Development Technology Canada, SDTC, the whole organization we are trying to look at.
We had full-out refusal from two departments, saying they were not getting us any documents: the Communications Security Establishment and the Public Sector Pension Investment Board.
It was a simple request, and we can see from multiple departments there was never a simple answer and the documents were never given to where they needed to go. The government's claim that handing over unredacted documents would violate the charter is just an excuse to dodge accountability. Let us be clear: The charter protects individual rights and not the government's right to hide how it spent taxpayer dollars.
Imagine again if someone being audited by CRA said, “I am not handing over my documents because it is a violation of my rights.” That would not fly. CRA would demand full transparency because it is about accountability and ensuring no wrongdoing occurred. This is not a charter violation. It is about the government trying to cover its tracks. Canadians have the right to know where their money went and the government cannot use the charter as a shield to avoid answering for potential misuse of public funds. If the government really believes in transparency, it should hand over the full documents and let the facts speak for themselves.
History provides us with lessons on the consequences of defying parliamentary authority. Let us not forget the case of King Charles I, who refused to acknowledge Parliament's rights and authority. His actions led to a constitutional crisis and his eventual downfall. While we live in a very different time, the principle remains the same: When the executive refuses to respect the will of Parliament, it weakens democracy and erodes the foundations of governance. The government may argue that Parliament overstepped by ordering documents to be handed to the RCMP, but this claim does not hold up. Parliament has the power to demand documents from the government, period. The RCMP can review and investigate if needed, but Parliament is tasked with holding the government accountable.
In the ruling, the Speaker clearly affirmed that the House of Commons has the absolute authority to demand documents from the government without limits unless it explicitly decides otherwise. The government's argument that sharing these documents with the RCMP oversteps Parliament's authority does not hold up under these established rules. The Speaker acknowledged this authority, stating that the motion for the production of documents has already been passed and should have been complied with.
The Speaker also recommended that the matter be referred to a committee for further study, citing the unusual nature of the order, specifically the fact that it involves sending the documents to a third party. However, this suggestion is procedural. It does not negate the original demand from Parliament. We have an absolute right as parliamentarians to demand the production of documents, and the government has to produce those documents.
Here is why the committee route is also not appropriate for this case. Parliament already made a clear demand, which came from committee, and referring this issue to a committee is a way to delay compliance and avoid accountability. The Speaker stated that the government has not fully complied with the order and that the House has the right to decide whether it is satisfied with the response, not a committee. Delaying by sending it to a committee is kicking the can down the road, wasting more time instead of giving Canadians the transparency they deserve right now.
Canadians have so much pain. We spend our time in our constituencies, and all of us know that Canadians are having a hard time feeding and housing themselves right now. They are having a hard time going to the grocery store. These are real issues. I talk routinely about the problems we have with everyday items that other people across the world can afford, like cellphones. The average cellphone bill right now in Canada is over $106. As Canadians use more data, they are finding their cellphone bills have gone up. Telus and Bell just announced they are going to increase the rates for international roaming, at a time when we already pay the highest fees. They are just finding more ways to get money out of Canadians.
We can talk about other big issues. Let us look at trade and what has happened in Canada since we signed CUSMA. Canada was kicked out of the negotiations at the G7 summit for three months when the Prime Minister made the comment that we were not helping. Trade negotiators were kicked out for three months. Mexico made a better deal with the Americans, and what has happened? Mexico is now the Americans' number one trade partner when it used to be Canada. That is two million jobs, trade and paycheques for Canadians.
We have a duty in this House, and we all speak as parliamentarians. When we are elected, we all do it for one “why”. My why has always been my children and others who want to have a better life in Canada. I want a good life for my children and grandchildren. I want them to be able to afford a home, go to the grocery store and afford groceries, get a good education, get good health care and get a good job that pays a good paycheque so they can live a life. I want that for all Canadians. However, the more we are enthralled by issues that waste taxpayer money, by high taxes and by issues that make Canadians unable to find and afford a home, the more the dream is slipping away for many Canadians. It is so bad that the children of Canadians who do not have a home now will probably not be able to afford one.
Today, we must reaffirm the supremacy of Parliament and the importance of transparent governance. When this House ordered the production of documents relating to the SDTC scandal, it did so to uphold its duty of accountability to Canadians. Parliament's right to demand documents is absolute. Any suggestion otherwise is a dangerous misinterpretation of democratic principles.
The refusal to comply is not just an oversight; it is a deliberate obstruction of parliamentary privilege. We must not allow any government to selectively decide which rules to follow. This is not a question of politics. This is a question of preserving the integrity of our democracy and the trust of the citizens who elect us.
The argument that sending documents to the RCMP violates the charter rights of Canadians is deeply flawed. Parliament's order does not dictate what the RCMP should or should not do with the documents. It simply provides the information necessary to investigate possible wrongdoings. Our role is to ensure no stone is left unturned when public funds are mishandled. The government's attempt to block this process cannot stand. Upholding transparency is not a violation of rights; it is the very act of protecting them.
The government's refusal to comply with the House order is a challenge to the authority of this Parliament and a direct affront to the principles of democratic oversight. Today, we must make it clear that no government can shield itself from scrutiny and no charter right can be used to hide the truth from the people. Let the House stand firm in its commitment to uphold democracy, transparency and accountability, for anything less would be an abdication of our duties for Canadians.
Parliamentary oversight is essential for accountability. Parliament's right to demand documents is absolute. Respect for the rule of law and parliamentary privilege is the whole premise and duty of parliamentarians in this place, the House of Commons. There is no conflict between Parliament and the RCMP. The RCMP can decide to do whatever it likes with the documents that are in front of it.
Government obstruction is a pattern, and it has happened before. It happened last in 2021 with the national microbiology lab. Two scientists there needed to be examined. This exact same thing happened and it resulted in an election.
To quote Theodore Roosevelt from back in the 1900s, “No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it.” A hundred years later, the same thing holds true. The government is not above the law and is not below it either, nor do we ask the government's permission when we ask it to obey. This is a privilege motion by the House of Commons, which represents the common people. This place, which we walk into every day, is green to remind us of the people who used to work in the fields, and this place has demanded an answer from the government.
For all of us parliamentarians, who represent the people back home who want accountability and transparency, and on behalf of those people, we ask for our privilege to be honoured.
