Debates of Nov. 1st, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House. When we do, we do so on behalf of Canadians, of course, but we rise especially for the people who have placed their trust in us and asked us to represent them in the House of Commons. It is always an honour.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the spectacular performance of my colleague from Calgary Midnapore, who delivered a terrific speech entirely in French. Earlier, my francophone colleagues and I were saying how much we appreciated it. Our congratulations go out to her. She also gave us a really detailed list of the current government's failures, of all the transparency we need here in the House to do our job properly.

It is always a pleasure to rise here in the House, but when I have to do so to speak to subjects like the one before us today, it is always a bit unfortunate. It paints an unfortunate picture of our Parliament, an institution where democracy guides us and where representatives of the people are here to manage their constituents' affairs, in particular their money. This is no small feat.

What exactly is the subject of today's debate? I think it is important to remember what is happening here in Ottawa. There is a green fund called Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, containing hundreds of thousands of dollars. In fact, its fund amounts to $1 billion. Its goal is to support businesses that promote or develop technologies and solutions designed to combat the rise in greenhouse gases.

I think that everyone here accepts that the climate is changing. Everyone acknowledges that we are in a climate emergency. We may not all agree on how to respond, but the idea behind the development of these technologies is to address the environmental problems we face.

What bothers us is not the program, but what is being done with it. We need to keep one important fact in mind: The executives responsible for this $1‑billion fund are currently appointed by the Liberal government.

Why, then, has Parliament been paralyzed? Why is nothing moving forward here?

It is because, following an investigation by the Auditor General, as well as audits by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, those offices discovered some rather troubling things. For one thing, it has been proven that the people who administer this fund acted to ensure that money from this fund would be funnelled to their own companies. That was clear. Administrators of the $1-billion green fund funnelled money into the coffers of their own companies.

The second thing that is very troubling has to do with the whole process of awarding grants to companies that apply, because a bunch of companies received money when they were not eligible. This means there is a flaw in the process in terms of the interpretation of who should or should not get funding.

What were the results at the end of the day? A total of $59 million was awarded to projects that never should have received money. There is also $390 million that was paid in some 180 cases where there was a real or potential conflict of interest. All in, we are getting to close to $500 million or half a billion dollars.

Knowing that, how can anyone think that parliamentarians would not ask to see these documents or ask for accountability, especially when we consider what the Auditor General discovered? The Auditor General is the watchdog. She is appointed by the House to ensure that the work that is done here is done with the greatest integrity because we are managing taxpayer money. The House demanded that the government hand over its documents to the RCMP, our police force that conducts investigations. I believe that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner would agree.

What did the government do? It did exactly what my colleague described earlier. It said that this was out of the question, that the government was not going to hand these documents over to the House. In its wisdom, the House of Commons, with all its members, decided to lodge a protest. That is what I will call it. The House said that that was not how things would go, that the House needs these documents and the RCMP needs to see these documents. The Auditor General has already taken a critical look at the situation, and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has raised ethical concerns. Now we want to know whether any criminal acts were committed. It is as simple as that, and to do that, the RCMP needs to have these documents.

The House was dissatisfied with the government's decision not to provide those documents and so it raised a question of privilege. It did not act on a whim. We do not do this every day or every week. We do it when the rights of members of Parliament are violated. In his great wisdom, the Speaker of the House of Commons agreed with the Conservatives and with those who are rising in the House to say that things cannot work like this.

Unfortunately, the end result is that we are unable to work. We are unable to study legislation. We are not able to move bills forward. We are unable to move motions because the government is paralyzed, given that the question of privilege that we raised is a priority. It is a good thing that is the case, because we would not have the opportunity to rise as we are doing to defend our point of view, which has been largely supported by the Speaker of the House.

The only thing that is missing here today is a little goodwill on the part of the Liberal government. The government needs to agree to forward the documents, to hand them over to the appropriate people so that we can get back to work. One has to wonder whether it suits the Liberal government that Parliament is paralyzed like this. One has to wonder whether it suits the Liberal government that we cannot work on bills that could improve our constituents' quality of life.

That is a crass and dangerous denial of democracy. Information is power. When we do not have information and we cannot make sound decisions because we do not have information, then that is a denial of democracy.

The best country in the world, as Jean Chrétien called it, is not shining among the best right now because we are unable to make decisions that would truly reflect our role.

Our real role is to pass legislation, represent the people and oversee the government. Those are the three roles of MPs. I am just reminding them of that in case they have forgotten. Overseeing the government also includes cabinet members. The Liberal MPs should ask them questions. They rise in the House and ask what are called planted questions. I know all about it because I came here from another parliament. I know a planted question when I see one. They are softball questions that do not hurt the ministers. It always makes us laugh a bit.

Will any of them have the courage to stand up during the next question period, ask questions about the Liberal green slush fund and demand that their boss and cabinet agree to hand over the documents we need to do our job, so they can be sent to the RCMP? If they have the courage to question their boss's leadership, do any of these 24 Liberal members have the courage to demand that the documents be tabled?

This is an affront to democracy, unfortunately—

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

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe in democracy, and I would like you to confirm that we have quorum before we continue.

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

We will count the members present.

And the count having been taken:

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

There is quorum.

The hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they are coming; the Liberals are coming back. They missed quite a lot.

I was just saying that members of Parliament, no matter who they are, even government members, are responsible for keeping tabs on the government. We cannot understand why government members lacked the courage to hold their cabinet to account concerning the green fund scandal and ask that the documents requested by the House be sent to the RCMP to allow us to move on from this question of privilege, which has brought our work to a standstill.

The most basic precautionary approach would have been to require the board of directors, the administrators of this $1-million green fund, to refrain from authorizing funding for their own businesses. That is elementary. At some point, did it not occur to anyone that something was wrong? After all, we are talking about nearly $400 million involving 180 real or potential conflicts of interest. How is it that no one in the organization wondered if they were off track, considering the large amount of money involved? We are not dealing with one or two cases, an isolated case, or a mistake. It looks like a system to me, and that is not good.

When it comes to the Liberals, it is one scandal after another. Whether through the Auditor General of Canada auditing what took place, especially at the highest levels, or through the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, we are discovering one scandal after another. As I said before, will the 24 members who are challenging the leadership of their own leader show a bit more courage and demand accountability at their cabinet meetings?

Unfortunately, all of this undermines Canadians' confidence in their highest institution. We are talking about people who get up every day and take the bus or their car to go to work. They pay the carbon tax and taxes on groceries, which continue to rise in price. These people get up and go to work. Then, they find out on the evening news that there are some shrewd people who lined their pockets with nearly $500 million or who mismanaged that money, money that is entrusted to members of Parliament who are the trustees of that money. What do the Canadians who are watching at home think of us?

We Conservatives do not accept that. Transparency is a cornerstone of our democracy. Otherwise, this is all a sham or wishful thinking. I refuse to sit in a Parliament where the rights of Canadians and Quebeckers who entrust us with their money are flouted, where no one looks too closely at what is happening, where people turn a blind eye, where redacted documents are sent to the House with information missing. They are laughing at us. The Liberals take us for fools. They take the members of the House for fools.

We will continue our efforts until we receive the documents and they have been sent to the RCMP, period. For us, there can be no compromise on transparency.

Citizens are watching us today. Afterwards, some people will wonder why we are being judged so harshly.

Our constituents have never been so cynical about public institutions. People are disengaged. They no longer believe in our institutions because there have been too many scandals caused by the Liberals over the past nine years. There is complete disinterest.

There is an expression in Quebec that talks about budgeting like a good father. It is an expression from another time and these days we might talk about budgeting like a good mother. It means not spending more than we earn. What have the Liberals done for the past nine years? Money flowed like water. It was smooth sailing. They created programs that already existed in the provinces, like pharmacare. Pharmacare is nice, it is good, and it makes the government look good. However, Canadians are covered. The government is duplicating programs that already exist in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. People are watching us and the government is spending and cannot even balance the budget.

When someone wants to get a bank loan they need to have a good credit history, they have to have paid their debts. They cannot spend more than they earn. They have to show that they are able to stay on track. That is what that means. However, that is not what has been happening these past nine years.

I will add another layer to that. I wish I had more time, because I have a lot to say. Housing costs have doubled, and people cannot take it anymore. HungerCount 2024 has been released, and it shows that three million Quebeckers are now turning to food banks. It is unprecedented. People can no longer find a place to live. Housing costs are one expense that cannot be cut back. When people do manage find a place to live, the only expense they can cut back on is groceries. With no money left to buy food, they are turning to food banks, which cannot keep up with the demand.

I will conclude my speech with this: I urge the government to do the only thing left to do, which is to hand over the documents to the RCMP.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke a bit about the carbon tax. I want to ask her a question.

She was the minister in the National Assembly when Quebec introduced its system to fight climate change. Where does she stand on that today? Quebec currently has its own system, which works very well. She talked about the carbon tax, which does not apply in Quebec.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when people say that the carbon tax does not apply, it is not true.

Quebec's current system is undergoing a deep overhaul. The system has been in place for 10 years, if not more. When people say that the carbon tax does not apply, it is not true. It does not take a degree in quantum physics to figure out which butter or other products are going to cost more when a truck leaves Ontario for Quebec to make a delivery to a grocery store. This may not apply to butter, because our butter is domestic, but it does apply to any other product that comes from outside the province. It does not take a genius to figure out that everyone is bound to pay more. In fact, the carrier is paying more for gas, because the carbon tax they pay has increased exponentially.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. She talked about Quebec expressions. I would remind her that Quebec's motto is “Je me souviens” or “I remember”.

I remember being here in Parliament in 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 crisis. We had set up an emergency wage subsidy program. I remember how the Conservative Party dug into the candy dish with both hands and took nearly $1 million. The Conservatives later told us that they were sorry, that their coffers were full. However, they had no qualms about taking taxpayer money that was supposed to be used to save companies and organizations on the verge of bankruptcy. Today, they are still spouting the same Conservative rhetoric about how they are good stewards of public funds and are transparent.

The question I want to ask my colleague is pretty simple. Have they repaid that taxpayer money? Is that what it means to budget like a good father, as my colleague mentioned?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it does not bother me to talk about the Conservative Party with my colleague, who is from Quebec and defends Quebec's interests.

The Conservative Party is still the party that recognized Quebec as a distinct society under Prime Minister Harper. On top of that, we gave Quebec a seat at the UN and signed an asymmetrical health agreement with the Quebec government. That was a first. People need to be careful about the stones they throw at the Conservative Party.

What we are talking about today is how the party in power is managing things. We are talking about the Liberal Party's mismanagement, as it spends recklessly, cannot balance the budget and is plunging Canadians into poverty. I simply do not understand how a colleague whose party has supported this government nearly 200 times could ask me such a thing.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's talking about the cost of living, but right now, for the first time ever, we are seeing corporatization and corporate ownership exceed over 30% of residential housing. We have seen record profits for the big banks and big grocery. We are seeing it with the big web giants, yet we have never heard a Conservative get up in the House to call out the corporate greed.

This is not about small business. It is about a handful of corporations that are having record profits. Their margins are through the roof. The Liberals are not doing anything to rein it in, except having round tables and talking. We have not seen them do anything. The Conservatives, who are sitting in official opposition, have been absolutely silent. Even in Britain, the Conservatives there brought in an excess profit tax on oil and gas. We cannot even get Liberals to do that in Canada.

I am not talking about small businesses, because the corporatization and concentration of wealth also have an impact on them. Could my colleague speak about the impact that corporate profits and corporate greed are having on people in her riding?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I think is important and urgent to do today is to talk about the Liberals' greed. They have lost all common sense. After nine years in power, their arrogance is astounding. That is what we need to discuss. That is what we are talking about here today.

I want to remind my colleague that his political party's support for the government gives it the majority it needs to stay in power. Despite all the posturing by Bloc members, they support what this government does every day, including on ethical matters. That is unfortunate.

My colleague should ask this government some questions. That is what he should do. He needs to stop supporting the government so that we can have an election. It is urgent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for providing such a clear explanation throughout her speech on why this parliamentary privilege motion is so important for Canadians, especially when it comes to fighting climate change.

In my riding, a green hydrogen company was affected by this Liberal scandal that practically ended this federal program. Can my colleague elaborate on the negative impacts of Liberal corruption on green technology companies in Canada?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not see it coming, but that is an excellent question.

As I said in my introduction, we have nothing against the program. We believe that climate change is real and has to be addressed, because there is definitely a problem when it comes to climate. I think that everyone agrees on that, but we do not agree on how to address it. In our view, the right approach is to tell businesses to develop solutions, new ways of doing things and new technologies so that we can deal with the situation and combat climate change. We do not think that punishing people is the right way to get there.

Unfortunately, almost half a billion dollars has been granted to the wrong companies, companies that had no right to that money or that were owned by board members. This has prevented organizations and companies in our ridings from accessing the program, although they are entirely capable of revolutionizing our approach to climate change.

The program is not necessarily the problem. It is the people who manage it.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the cost of living. Let us talk specifics here. A Bloomberg-Nanos poll showed that the Canadian consumer confidence index is at a 30-month high. Due to the actions and programs of our government, a severe recession and global inflation, which was a big problem for Canadians too, have been managed well in Canada now that the inflation rate has come down to 1.6%. Interest rates have also been cut for a fourth consecutive time to 3.75%.

Canada is the best performing in all these parameters compared to any other G7 country, and so much so that the IMF has predicted that next year, Canada will be leading in GDP growth among all G7 countries. I would like the member to tell us which other G7 countries have done better and under what parameters.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have one for him. It is a G7 parameter involving the size of our country. Canada has the lowest number of housing units of any G7 country. We have compiled a few horror stories like that one that we could share.

What the member is forgetting to mention is the news that came out this week about poverty levels among Canadians compared to Americans. That news was nothing short of tragic.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here today is something that should be seizing the House of Commons, and it has been for some time. On the bottom of the screen, when we speak, it simply says, “Privilege—Subamendment”. That sounds pretty boring or dry until we get into the reason we are debating this issue today.

We are talking about a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. On the face of it, on a prima facie case, the Speaker has determined that the collective privileges of members of Parliament have been violated, and that is a serious matter. It is so serious that all other business that would normally be before the House is suspended until such time as this matter is dealt with. I think that Canadians need to be reminded of that and of some of the privileges the House of Commons has and its collective members have, and that if we don't protect them, the current government and future governments will continue to roll over them, and continue to ignore the will of elected members of Parliament.

It comes right down to what our role is, as members of Parliament. Our role is to hold the government to account. This is true not just for members of the opposition or of opposition parties. It is supposed to be true for every member of Parliament who is not a member of the government. I think there is a lack of knowledge, or over time, every member who is, in this case, a Liberal, believes that they are a member of the government. However, they are most certainly not. The cabinet is the government of Canada, and the rest of us have an obligation to hold the government to account. That certainly used to be the way it was, when it did not matter what party a member was. What mattered was their position in the House. If a member was not in the cabinet, they held the government to account.

Now we have Liberal members of Parliament, who are not members of the government, who nonetheless believe that it is the role of the House of Commons to support the government. In this case, a vote was held in the House where members of Parliament exercised our rights to demand the production of papers, where it is a key privilege of members of Parliament to demand the production of papers. We exercised that right. We held a vote in the House of Commons, and the majority of the members of the House of Commons demanded that papers be produced, that the government provide papers on the Sustainable Development Technology Canada slush fund and that those papers be given to the RCMP and the Auditor General so that they could do with them what they would. It does not compel them to conduct an investigation or take any particular action, but it does compel the government to obey the order to produce the papers, as was demanded by the House of Commons.

Why is this so important? It is because, if the government is allowed to ignore a key privilege of the House of Commons, there is no accountability. There is no ability for members of Parliament to hold the government to account if there is an ability to ignore democratic votes in the House of Commons.

We know that the government has no problem doing that. We saw it when the House of Commons voted to list the IRGC as a terrorist entity. It took the government years, and the only reason the Liberals actually did it was that they hoped it would help them save their failing candidate in a Toronto by-election. The narrator would say, “It did not work.” They still lost that by-election, even though they tried at the last minute to finally list the IRGC, as Parliament had demanded many years previously.

Now we are seeing it again with the government denying a request. They believe they know better. We have requested that unredacted documents be sent to the RCMP and the Auditor General, and the government has said no.

The Liberals have redacted those documents. They have determined, in their infinite wisdom, that they know better than the majority of the members of the House of Commons. Even though it is a core privilege for members of Parliament to be able to demand the production of papers, the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office have said they know better than the elected representatives of this House of Commons who have exercised their rights in a democratic vote.

That is why we are here today. It is because the government refuses to accept that Parliament is supreme, that Parliament, not the government, has the right, in this case, to demand the production of these documents and demand that they be turned over unredacted, without any edits and without parts blacked out. It all needs to go to the RCMP and the Auditor General for their use as they see fit. This is a complete and total Liberal scandal. It is another example of why the Liberals are not worth the corruption.

There was $400 million in SDTC funds given out under questionable circumstances. There was $58 million for 10 ineligible projects altogether. There were over 180 conflicts of interest where members of the board of directors were able to vote on whether funds should go to companies that they were affiliated with. It is almost unbelievable if we were not talking about the Liberal government and its record. We have 186 cases where the board members held a conflict of interest.

The worst part of all this is that the then-minister of industry, Navdeep Bains, was told that this would be the result of him appointing a partisan board chair. SDTC had operated at arm's length from government, without conflicts of interest, right up until the Liberal government took over, and then decided to stack it with Liberals who had conflicts of interest and who took advantage of government money to line the pockets of companies they were engaged with. The minister was told this would happen and he ignored the advice that he received. This is not new for the Liberal government, but it certainly was something that he was warned about and ignored.

The Liberals have wasted 400 million tax dollars at a time when two million Canadians a month are lining up at food banks. They are just frittering away $400 million while two million Canadians are lining up at food banks, many for the first time and a quarter of them children.

I heard a question from a Liberal member just prior to my speech. Basically, his question was about how Canadians have never had it so good and he asked why that was not agreed with. It is so outrageous and out of touch, when we have two million Canadians a month at food banks, when people's rents have doubled, mortgage payments have doubled, and the cost of housing has doubled, to have Liberal members asking why others are not praising the government for its amazing work. I can say that no one who lines up at the food bank for the first time is praising the government or thinks that things are going well.

People are losing their homes or at risk of homelessness. We do not have to go very far in Ottawa to see that. In my neck of the woods in Chilliwack, over the last number of years, my hometown has had numerous permanent homelessness encampments and they move around from time to time. This is in spite of record investments from the city in housing solutions and trying to help people. We have a very generous community. However, the highway rest areas between Chilliwack and Langley are full of people in mostly dilapidated RVs because that is where they live now. So, the idea that things are great and talking about the IMF at a time when people are living in a broken-down RV or lining up at the food bank is just completely out of touch.

We know that the government has continued to drive up the cost of living. Whether it is on home heating, groceries or the price of gas, the Liberals continue to jack up the carbon tax. This makes it even harder for Canadians to make ends meet. They have no problem raising the cost for Canadians, but they will not raise the ethical bar on something such as SDTC; there, they can hand out money willy-nilly to their friends, to the tune of $400 million.

The government cannot manage a budget. It already has a higher deficit by $8 billion than what the Liberals predicted just in the last budget alone. It now spends more on interest payments than it does on health care transfers to the provinces, which is an outrageous scandal in and of itself. The Liberal government gives more money away in interest payments than it spends on the necessary health care funding that we so desperately need.

We have seen, in my province, that the B.C. NDP has managed our health care system into the ground. It is at the point where, every weekend now, numerous emergency rooms are closed because of the mismanagement of the B.C. NDP. It could definitely use some of the funding that the government in Ottawa is spending on interest. I am not convinced that the B.C. NDP could actually manage it any better, but we have certainly seen, in our province, how our health care system has been mismanaged and is in need of an injection of funds. It would be nice if the government in Ottawa were not running up the deficit to such an extent that the interest payments were more than the health care payments in this country.

However, it is a priority of the government to not only continue to withhold documents that the House of Commons has demanded but also to continue to support SDTC and its mismanagement. That is a very difficult thing. We have now been speaking about this for many days, many weeks, and the government continues to dig in its heels and hold the House up by refusing to address this issue, refusing to give the documents to the RCMP and to the Auditor General that have been demanded. If the Liberals did that, we would be back to such things as important business from private members and important work that could be done here. However, the Liberals are holding the House under their thumb because they refuse to respect the ruling of the Speaker and the vote in the House of Commons.

Once again, we get back to whom the Liberals think they serve. Do they believe they serve their constituents, or do they serve the Prime Minister's Office? We know that many of them had the most inept coup in the history of democracy. I believe it was 24 at the latest count. They meekly sent a letter to the Prime Minister, who promptly shredded it, ignored it and told them what he thought of it the very next day. However, even in the Liberal caucus, there are those who no longer wish to take their marching orders from the current Prime Minister and from his PMO.

Certainly, in the Conservative Party, we will not allow the PMO and the Prime Minister to run roughshod over the will of the House of Commons. This was expressed in a vote that demanded the production of these papers. Again, we can dress it up any way we want, but this is a matter that goes to the core of what we do here.

For too long, for a government that was supposed to be the most transparent government in history, and sunlight was going to be the best disinfectant, all of that boilerplate nonsense, it did not believe any of it. The government has proven that time and time again.

We have this situation here where the House of Commons has acted within its bounds, within its authority, to demand the production of papers. Again, if we look at the documents that outline how we govern ourselves, that is listed as a core privilege. It is not a nice-to-have. If we do not protect this, we do not have the ability to exercise our rights as members of Parliament in the chamber.

That is why Conservatives will continue to stand up and fight for that right and for our privilege. It is not because we feel privileged as individuals; it is because we need to stand up and defend our democratic institutions. This is an attack on our democratic institutions. When members do not respect the authority of Parliament, or when members believe the Prime Minister's Office, the Prime Minister or the cabinet can override the will of the House of Commons, they are undermining the democratic process. There are no two ways about it.

We have seen the Liberals do this before. We saw it with the Winnipeg lab documents issue, where there was another vote in the House of Commons. The Liberal government took the outrageous step of taking the Speaker to court. Their own Speaker, a Liberal Speaker, was taken to court because the House of Commons dared to use its authority to demand the production of papers and to demand information on what had happened at the Winnipeg labs with the breach of security there.

We have seen that the government has no problem kicking the slats out from under Parliament, taking it as a bit of advice that it will take or ignore, when in fact it is an order. That is exactly what we, as Conservatives, are standing up against. It is something if the government can take a Speaker to court and can ignore votes of the House of Commons when it comes to privilege. This is not an opposition motion where members pontificate on a policy issue.

We are aware that the government has some latitude to determine whether or not it will implement that. However, when we are talking about a core right, the production of papers being one of them, we have to stand up for ourselves. We have to encourage members to be aware, again, of their core function, which is to serve their constituents and to hold the government to account, no matter which side of the House they are on. It is not to simply act as mouthpieces for an unelected Prime Minister's Office or the Prime Minister himself.

The Prime Minister is supposed to be a servant of the House, not its master. As long as we allow the government to flout the rules, to deny the production of papers, as has been demanded by the House, we will be voluntarily giving up our privileges and voluntarily undermining a democratic institution.

Conservatives will not stand for it. Conservatives will continue to stand up for the House of Commons being supreme, for our votes to be respected, and for the government, when we demand the production of papers, no longer treating that as a suggestion.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the member of Parliament for Chilliwack—Hope that the Auditor General actually found that a number of ineligible firms received money from SDTC. That was a big issue. I know that, when people in my riding of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola were found to be ineligible for CERB payments, they had to pay that money back to the CRA.

Does the member for Chilliwack—Hope believe that it is not just the Liberal government that should be accountable but that those companies should also pay the money back to taxpayers?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to me, that is just common sense. If someone receives money that they were not entitled to, the government should make an effort to get it back.

Certainly, any taxpayer in my riding knows what happens, even if they make a mistake on their tax forms. The taxman is very quick to come back and demand that the money be repaid, oftentimes with penalties and interest. The idea that, just because these firms are connected to the Liberal Party, they should not be held accountable when they were ineligible to receive funds is outrageous. They absolutely should pay it back, and I believe that this is one of the reasons that the RCMP and the Auditor General should be given these documents. They can then determine what, if any, next steps should be taken as well.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the same question that I have asked many of our colleagues throughout this debate. We are talking about the theft of over $400 million by Liberal insiders, who then funnelled the money to their own companies; the Auditor General found over 186 conflicts of interest with respect to that money.

The Liberals would say that there is nothing to see here; let us just get it to committee where we will study it, and everything will be fine. However, if somebody steals from my hon. colleague, does he go to the RCMP or does he go to a committee?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, that is another good, common-sense question from my friend there.

It is absolutely up to the RCMP to determine what it does with the information that is forwarded to it. Certainly, I expect the RCMP to take a great interest in the fact that nearly $400 million in funds went to well-connected Liberal companies.

As has been indicated, $58 million went to companies that were ineligible to receive the funding. When we talk about this sort of corruption, the RCMP should be given all the information, not just the information that the government deigns that it should be able to receive. That is at the core of what we are talking about here.

The House of Commons has demanded that certain documents be turned over to the RCMP. The RCMP will determine what it does with that information. However, it is not up to the government, after a vote in the House of Commons, to make its own determination as to which documents should be turned over to the RCMP. All the documents that the House has demanded must be turned over to the RCMP.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, how does the member feel about the fact that the RCMP does not want the documents?

This is—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleagues heckling and saying “not true”. However, I will read an excerpt from an actual letter from the commissioner; he said, “Any information obtained through the Motion or other compulsory authorities would need to be segregated from an RCMP investigation. There is a significant risk that the Motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.”

The RCMP wrote the House a letter and said it does not want the information through the manner in which we would be trying to give it to the RCMP. The RCMP said it has the ability to get the information when and how it wants it. I have a simple question for the member. I am sure he can provide me a simple, common-sense answer to it.

Why is he so insistent on this method of handing over information when the authority he wants to give it to is telling us not to give it like this?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I realize the Liberal member believes he is a member of the Liberal government. However, he is not in cabinet. He has never been in cabinet and I do not believe he will be in cabinet. His job, like the rest of us, is to hold the government to account.

The RCMP can do with the documents what it pleases, but the House of Commons has the right and the privilege to demand the production of papers. That is what the government does not understand. The Liberals say maybe the RCMP does not want the information in that format, maybe the RCMP would prefer the documents to come in a different way, or the RCMP could do something else if it wanted to.

Parliament is supreme. It has the ability to demand the production of papers. That has been done. That bridge has been crossed. Now it is up to the government to obey the lawful order of the House of Commons. The Liberal government wants to break that rule. That is why we are having this debate, because the government has broken faith with Parliament. It has decided it does not need to listen to Parliament, although the Speaker has said that, yes, it does.

Until such time as the government turns over the documents, as has been demanded by this Parliament through a lawful vote, we will continue to stand up for our democratic institutions, for members of Parliament and for our rights. We will not be distracted by the comments of a Liberal backbencher.