Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this space to speak to the issues that are important to the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.
I was speaking with a constituent in the Nicola Valley, who raised an issue with me about how they were starting to feel about the fact that after the next election there will be changes to our riding boundaries; the Nicola Valley will be in a different riding and I will not be in that particular race. They were commenting about how they did not like the change. I told them that I did not like the change either but that sometimes we need to move with the times.
However, I also said that some things should not change. A constituent's member of Parliament, whoever he or she is, should be accountable to them and do their utmost to bring their voice to the chamber. It may be a different member of Parliament, but that should never change. We should always remember who elected us and whom we are here to serve.
This is a reminder to all members who are not members of the cabinet. Essentially, all of us who are not part of the cabinet, the government itself, are here to hold the government to account. As the previous speaker, the member for the Bay of Quinte said, government is tied to the hip of Parliament to be held accountable. We give it exceptional powers. With those exceptional powers there is supposed to be accountability to the representatives.
I know that some members have talked about the three different branches: the judiciary, the executive and the legislative. I respect that, but let us respect the place that we are in. Let us respect that we all have that particular job to do.
One of the interesting arguments I have heard in the media and in the chamber is about issues around charter rights if the government follows through on the original production order made by the chamber. The government said that it cannot share any personal information because it would violate people's charter rights if it gave documents with personal information to the RCMP.
First of all, I would point to section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which essentially says that where Parliament chooses in a free and open democratic society to pass a law that gets what it considers the right balance on charter rights, then that is okay. Ultimately the Supreme Court will determine whether Parliament was able to get the balancing act right. Everything is on the table.
Second, the RCMP is a creation of Parliament. It adheres to our laws, particularly the Privacy Act. In fact, the RCMP website says that with respect to any information supplied to it, the RCMP will follow and adhere to everything required of it under the Privacy Act. The RCMP will not share Canadians' information.
As a reminder, here we are, talking about the requirement of the government to produce documents to the chamber that we would give to the RCMP, which, under the Privacy Act, is bound to protect the privacy of individuals who are mentioned. This is information about a program that was funded by taxpayers. Sustainable Development Technology Canada was a federal body created by an act of Parliament. All of its monies and all of its activities were ultimately responsible to the chamber, which was why the former minister of innovation, science and economic development was the minister responsible to the chamber for the green slush fund.
I think it is important to ask whether the government is saying that if it does produce the documents, the RCMP is going to give out the personal information of people working in a publicly funded program, willy-nilly. That is what it is saying. It is essentially saying that the RCMP is not capable of operating a tight ship, according to the law. That is the criticism the government is laying down by saying that there are privacy concerns.
We are not saying that the information should be given to everyone. The Privacy Act has very clear stipulations about an access to information request and what information one can receive. There are rules that are well codified and well laid out, and ultimately the government should respect that fact.
Therefore let us put to bed the whole conversation about privacy when it comes to people who have participated in the federal Sustainable Development Technology program and who, as part of that, have voted for their own companies to receive large amounts, in a situation where the Auditor General found huge discrepancies with respect to conflict of interest over hundreds of millions of dollars. I hope we will hear nothing more about the so-called privacy concerns.
I will now return to the amendment that the Conservatives have made to the motion we are debating, which reads:
That the motion be amended by adding the following:
“provided that it be an instruction to the committee:
(a) that the following witnesses be ordered to appear before the committee, separately, for two hours each:
(i) the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry,
(ii) the Clerk of the Privy Council,
(iii) the Auditor General of Canada,
(iv) the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,
(v) the Deputy Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada,
(vi) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons,
(vii) the Acting President of Sustainable Development Technology Canada,
(viii) a panel consisting of the Board of Sustainable Development Technology Canada; and
(b) that it report back to the House no later than Friday, November 22, 2024.”
The amendment is giving important instructions so we can get to the bottom of the issue.
I am going to step back from the motion for a second to say one thing. One of our members from Ontario, today in question period, raised a really important question, effectively asking what is in the documents that the government would stonewall its obligations to Parliament.
Some might just say that it is the egomaniacs who find themselves in the current Prime Minister's Office who are saying, “Let's be obstinate. Let's just say that we don't have to, that we're not subject to them.” Well, the message is that the executive branch rules the roost and that it has no responsibilities to anyone. As someone who believes in the rule of law, I would simply say that it is up to us as an institution, as men and women of the House of Commons, to push back, because no one person is exceptional. That is why we have the rule of law and not the rule of a man or a woman, where they get to decide.
The second thing I would point out is that when we are talking about the conduct of the current government, its members could be saying, “Wow, we allowed some horrible things to happen, and they could be criminal, definitely unethical, under the SDTC process.” However, now that they realize how shockingly bad it is, they do not want to see the information go to the RCMP, because it may have evidence to open a case file but may not have all the pieces of the puzzle to be able to have a broad range of charges to bring forward.
I am clearly openly speculating on this. Why am I? It is because in the vacuum provided by the government, speculation will roar in. Why is that? It is because it is a head-scratcher. Why would the government stonewall a production order by the House? It is either because of ego or because it is so overwhelmingly bad that the government does not want to own up to it publicly.