Madam Speaker, it is such a pleasure to be here yet again to speak about the government's unwillingness to turn over documents. It is a bit like Groundhog Day. What a wonderful movie that was with Bill Murray. There is a good quote in that movie: “You wanna throw up here, or you wanna throw up in the car?” The person answers, “I think...both.” Maybe that is what Canadians are feeling while watching this debate go on and on because the government refuses to release documents that we all know Parliament has an ability to get.
I would like to start off with a couple of quotes. The last time Parliament was seized with a document production order from a previous government, Michael Ignatieff, then the leader of the Liberal Party, said, “Its refusal to get to the truth is costing us our credibility as a nation”. I will skip a quote by Mr. Ujjal Dosanjh, as it is too long. Mr. Bryon Wilfert said, “in fact, the supremacy of Parliament dominates”. This is not something written on the back of an envelope. Parliament has unfettered access to these documents. Mr. Shawn Murphy, a Liberal from Charlottetown, stated, “the law is very clear that Parliament has the unfettered right to seek the production of persons, papers and records”. Mr. Jack Harris, a New Democrat, said, “the supremacy of Parliament is incontestable“ and “the power of Parliament is predominant and overrides that.”
We have been here before. We have discussed Parliament's ability to get documents. In that circumstance, there was a willingness on behalf of the government to find a solution that would enable Parliament to keep functioning while complying with the order to turn over documents. In that case, it was for a matter of national security, which was how the special committee on defence was born. It was to provide parliamentarians with an ability to see documents that they had a right to access and read so they could get back to the business of the House. The government has not offered any compromise on how it wants to get back to the business of Parliament.
What is it we want to get back to? We have to spend a moment talking about the last-ditch cheque-writing scheme the government announced last week. It is all about control for the Prime Minister. He wants to control what we see online. He wants to control other aspects of our lives. Guess what. He is going to give us a tax break, but only if we spend it on the things he allows us to spend it on. For someone who wants to buy a 6.9% beer, there is no problem, but heaven forbid if it is a 7.1% beer. That is not covered. Time and time again, the Prime Minister has shown a penchant for wanting to control Canadians.
However, let us get back to the documents. As we have talked about, Parliament has the unfettered ability to access documents, but the government seems to have a problem with conflicts of interest. It also seems to have a problem with producing documents. Do members remember the WE Charity scandal and the Winnipeg lab documents? Do they remember the beginning of COVID when the government tried to suspend Parliament and give itself unlimited taxing and spending powers without the oversight of Parliament?
It has clearly shown a disdain for what happens in this place. Ministers routinely ignore invitations to committees. The Liberals routinely ignore orders to produce documents. They even took the Speaker to court.
On foreign interference, they did not want to do anything, which is very interesting, because the party that has had absolute information asymmetry through this entire affair, the party that knows everything about foreign interference there is to know, is the one that said all along that we did not need to do anything. We did not need an inquiry. Former governor general David Johnston would launder their reputation with his good reputation, and everything would be okay. It turned out there was something there, but the Liberals tried telling Canadians all along that there was nothing to see. They did not want to expose the truth.
The fact that the RCMP wrote a letter saying that in its investigation it may not be able to rely on documents that it receives is fair enough. The order does not require the government to send the documents to the RCMP. The order requires the government to send the documents to the law clerk, and the law clerk is supposed to send the documents to the RCMP. The RCMP is well within its rights to not look at them. It is well within its rights to not rely on them for an investigation. As a member of Parliament, if I get those documents, I will post them on the Internet, and the RCMP can look at them if they like. However, the government has not even offered a compromise on how it wants to deal with this.
Let us talk about the legal advice the government is getting. The government is getting legal advice from the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice is advising, as I am sure is likely the case, the industry minister, the industry department, the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office. That same Department of Justice is also advising the RCMP. That sounds like a conflict of interest.
It would be very convenient for the RCMP to write a letter that says it does not want the documents, as they could put privacy rights of Canadians at risk. That is really convenient given the same lawyers advising the RCMP are advising Industry Canada. One has to wonder about the conflicts of interest going on in the current case within the government apparatus at the Department of Justice, which has two clients with potentially divergent interests.
One might think we would want to take into consideration this conflict of interest, but it is not the first time that conflicts of interest seem to escape members of Parliament on the other side. Need I remind the House about the Aga Khan trip to a billionaire's island, or the friends who were not found to be friends as it relates to receiving gifts?
The Auditor General singled out that $400 million of taxpayer money went to ineligible recipients and specifically counted 186 cases of specific conflicts of interest where a board member was found to be benefiting through a company in which they had a financial interest. That, in and of itself, should be cause for Parliament to shut down and have an election. The fact that $400 million of this fund went to people who should not have gotten it tells us all we need to know about the government.
Since we are going back in time, as my hon. colleagues like to do, I want to read some quotes from the hon. Scott Brison. In 1999, Mr. Brison said to the Toronto Star, “Nothing starts a feeding frenzy more than the smell of cash around Liberal backbenchers.” In Hansard in 1998, he said, “The biggest obstacle that stands between Canadians and the attainment of their goals is the Liberal government.” This is what is happening.
Canadians just want to live their lives. They pay their taxes, they want to do the right thing and then they find out that the government, because it is completely inept and negligent, not only allows money to go to ineligible recipients, but appoints people who have an inherent conflict of interest to a board that disburses money to those it knows. If it were not for the whistle-blower in this case, we would not have known that at the beginning of these board appointments, the conflicts of interest these board members potentially would be in was raised as an objection by ministerial staff, by departmental staff. They were saying that the individuals the government wanted to appoint to the board would be in conflicts of interest and would make it hard for them to discharge their duties. The warning was very clear. What happened? These individuals could not help themselves but be tempted to favour their own companies.
We should be seized with this situation, as we rightfully are in the House. Our parliamentary system works on parliamentary supremacy. The fact is that we asked for these documents as a Parliament, with the support of the majority of members of the House, and we should be able to see those documents. If the government is very concerned about what is in them, for reasons I am not sure of, because it certainly is not national security as it was in previous times, then it could at least offer a compromise on how we could solve this situation.
I have another proposal for my friends. The Liberals can either give us the documents, or they can get the $400 million back. If they get the $400 million back, then I would be willing to expeditiously move back to the work of the people. However, frankly, this is the work of the people. They expect us to come to Ottawa and find out what is happening with their money.
I have been driving around this town for the greater part of three years, and I still have not found the money tree that the government seems to think exists. Have members seen the money tree yet? I would love to find it. However, the Liberals treat hundreds of millions of dollars with such nonchalance—