Debates of Nov. 25th, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, to highlight the word “hypocrisy”, members should read what the member across the way just said about freedom. While they are at it, they should read the CBC article that talks about what Conservative MPs from within their own caucus had to say. It states:

After two years of [the leader of the Conservative Party], many Conservative MPs say they are much less free now than they were before his arrival.

The man who promised during his leadership run to make Canada “the freest country in the world” maintains tight control over the actions of his caucus members.

The member talks about freedom, but in reality, his leader has said that it does not apply to Conservative members of Parliament. Does he not see any hypocrisy there?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, the source is the CBC. That is enough said.

[Don Stewart, Conservative, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am reminded of the Greek myth of Midas, in which everything he touches turns to gold. He turned his daughter into a gold statue, and he was distraught. There was another part where he judged a music contest, and the gods did not like his choice, so his ears were turned into donkey ears. He had to run around like that. However, for the things he had turned to gold, he was ultimately able to unwind what had happened by washing his hands of it.

Therefore, my question for the member is this: Is there a way for the government to unwind this scandal and the money it has spent?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not think there is. The proof of that is the government's reluctance to provide the documents to Parliament. What is in those documents that is so damning and could cause potential damage to the government?

I will tell members what my big fear is. I understand that we have laws to protect information in this country. When we do change government, which is coming, although we do not know when, but hopefully sooner than later, then we will be able to get to the bottom of all of these scandals and have access to all of these documents.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, normally when I rise in the House to speak, I say I am pleased to rise today. However, I must say I am super sad to rise today in the House. I am super sad about the state of our nation. I cannot believe what happened in Montreal on Friday night and the state of events.

For those who are watching the debate today, we are still here, two months down the road, talking about the Sustainable Development Technology Canada fund, which was $400 million of taxpayer money that ended up going to insiders who gave the money to their own companies. The Auditor General said there were 186 conflicts of interest. The whistle-blowers within the department itself said there was criminality involved.

Parliamentarians did their due diligence. It was the will of the House, with a majority vote, to have all the documents associated with this sordid affair produced and sent to the RCMP. The Liberals did what they always do. They redacted the good parts of the documents that were produced and did not produce the other half of them. Here we are, and the Speaker has ruled that no other government business will take place until this question of privilege is addressed and those documents are produced and sent to the RCMP.

My theme today is that this all comes back to the problem of the Liberals not having any regard for the rule of law in this country. Canada is built on the rule of law. It is what makes us a civilized society. We have seen, from the time the Liberals were elected in 2015, a lack of respect for the law and a continual erosion of the rule of law in Canada. Let me spend a few minutes talking about that.

In 2015, the Liberals were elected and they first brought forward Bill C-83, which forced judges, when considering bail, to put the least restrictive measures on an individual to reduce it to the easiest bail. That was the beginning of what has become catch and release in this country.

In 2017, the Prime Minister went to billionaire island, which was $215,000 of taxpayer fraud. The RCMP ended up not investigating it, but at the end of the day, that sets the expectation of what kind of respect for the rule of law we should have. If the Prime Minister does not have any, then we can see that that lack of respect would go through the whole lot.

In 2019, Bill C-75 was brought forward by the government. In that bill, the government removed a lot of the mandatory minimums and set sentencing to be either a fine or a summary conviction of up to two years. Again, that diluted the rule of law in this country. Many of the things on the list were egregious, such as kidnapping and some terrorism offences. There were a whole list of things that the government reduced to a fine or a summary conviction of less than two years, which is a slap on the wrist.

In 2022, the Liberals brought in Bill C-5. This was something that has led to further erosion of the rule of law. I want to read a couple of things just so people can understand the impact of all of this. Many of the comments were made by my friend, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, who himself was a very experienced prosecutor when he came to this place. He said, when it comes to the different rules that were introduced, there were some that did not help. When former justice minister, David Lametti, introduced Bill C-5 in November of 2022, he described it as giving those who made small mistakes a second chance at life. The bill was really about eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for second and third convictions of serious gun and drug crimes.

We see that this continual erosion of the rule of law has led us to where we are today with the green slush fund. We know that the whistle-blower said there was criminality, and we see a number of subsection 119(1) violations. For those who do not know what that part of the law is about, subsection 119(1) says that no holder of public office can take an action that benefits themselves or their family.

We can see numerous issues with the green slush fund when people took these actions. Some of them were were at the cabinet table. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change took an action as a cabinet minister to approve money, from the $400 million that was in the slush fund, to go to Cycle Capital, which he owns 270 million dollars' worth of. That company tripled its value, and that is a direct benefit to him. I will allow the RCMP to do its good work investigating.

We saw a similar problem with the WE Charity scandal when the Prime Minister was taking an action that benefited his mother, his brother and his wife. Now we see in the “other Randy” scandal that, while at the cabinet table, the former minister took an action to give money to a company that he was a 50% shareholder in. I see that the police are investigating that, and I expect them to come to the conclusion that any reasonable individual would come to.

As such, the introduction of all of these laws to chip away at the rule of law to allow criminals to go back on the streets has an impact, and I want to talk about what that impact is. Since the time these Liberals took power in 2015, homicide is up 33%; auto theft is up 39%; theft over $5,000 is up 49%; identity theft is up 121%; child sexual abuse is up 141%; human trafficking is up 210%; extortion is up 429%; child pornography is up 565%; and sexual assault is up 75%.

There is an impact when we remove the rule of law and the consequences that are put in place to disincentivize criminals from repeat offending. Many Order Paper questions have been asked to find out what is happening with catch and release and giving the least restrictive bail. It is said that one-third of homicides committed in Canada are committed by somebody who is out on bail for a previous violent offence. I want to speak to some of the human cost to that.

There was a shootout in Toronto, and of the 23 suspects collared, according the sources, one was wanted for an unsolved murder and four were free on bail conditions.

Here is another one: A gentleman was facing an attempted murder and gun charge and allowed out with an ankle monitor, which he cut off. Durham Radio News reports:

They say the man was ordered to wear a GPS ankle monitor after being let out on bail in September 2023 while his case was before the courts, but he cut it off and fled.

[He] is currently before the courts for:

two counts of Attempt to Commit Murder Using a Restricted Firearm...

Careless Use of Firearm

Possession of Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose

Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm

Unauthorized Possession of a Weapon

Knowledge of Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm

Possession Prohibited or Restricted Firearm with Ammunition

Use Firearm While Committing Offence

two counts of Possession of Schedule 1 Substance for the Purpose of Trafficking

Who thought it was a good idea to let a guy like this out with an ankle bracelet?

Similarly, there is a 36-year-old Montreal man who was let out on bail after allegedly uttering death threats against his partner. He is now accused of murdering her on the south shore.

Here is another one from CTV News:

Authorities have issued a public warning after a 19-year-old man facing multiple criminal charges, including two counts of sexual assault, was released on bail in Vancouver.

In a news release, the Vancouver Police Department said Bryce Michael Flores-Bebington poses a “risk of significant harm to public safety in relation to alleged unprovoked physical and sexual violence against strangers.”

This guy is a danger to the public and they had to issue a warning to the public about him. Who thought it was a good idea to let this person out on bail?

It was not a good idea, but the Prime Minister and the Liberal government has continued to allow criminals off to reoffend. Let us look at some of the most heinous examples, starting with Paul Bernardo.

I am from St. Catharines. I was born there. I went to school with Kristen French's brother Brian. I lived a block and a half from where they lived, and I walked the same street where Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy were taken every single day of the five years I was in high school. I followed this case, and it was disgusting what was done to these girls and the many other victims. He deserved to be in maximum-security prison but, under the Liberals, they put him in minimum security, where there is hockey and tennis. I am sure that he is having a much better time there. When he comes up for his parole hearing, they will not even allow the victim's family to attend. That is what the Liberal government has done to the rule of law in Canada.

Let me give another example. Let us talk about Terri-Lynne McClintic and Michael Rafferty. These two sickos took an eight-year-old Tori Stafford and they sexually assaulted her and murdered her. They are child killers. Yes, they were in maximum security until eventually Terri-Lynne McClintic was let out into a minimum-security healing lodge. It was not until the Conservatives found out and made a big stink about it that they put her back into a more secure prison. As soon as our back was turned, where did she go? She is now in a townhouse in a minimum-security facility next door to a mothers-with-children program. Members have heard that right. Terri-Lynne McClintic has access to children while in prison, and she is a child killer.

This is the undermining of the rule of law that the Liberal government has done. It is totally unacceptable and we see the results on our streets. For over a year, we have seen pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas illegal protests blocking roads, calling death to Jews and death to Canada, and burning our flag. All the while, what is being done from an enforcement point of view? Nothing has been done. There have been very few arrests. There was an incident in Montreal with thousands of people rioting, and there were three arrests. They will probably be out on bail before we know it. It is an undermining of the rule of law. It is also letting people into the country who are criminals and terrorists.

It has been admitted by the immigration minister that there was a period of time where, because of the backlog, they stopped doing security checks on people who were coming into the country. We have seen how that goes. They also decided to let 3,000 Gazans in when none of the other countries around would take them because of concerns about their links to Hamas, which is a designated terrorist organization. Canada brought them in. We have seen ISIS terrorists who were brought in through our immigration program.

This lack of respect for the rule of law extends to other departments that are inviting chaos into the country. When people want to become Canadian citizens, there are three things that they have to promise to do. The first is to obey the rule of law in Canada. It is one of the things that is part of any visa that we come to the country on, such as a tourist visa or work permit. Every one of these illegal protesters should be charged if they are Canadian citizens. Their files should be flagged if they are permanent residents so that they cannot become Canadian citizens, because they are not upholding the rule of law in Canada. They are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

I am sure our neighbours across the aisle here will decide that I am a racist. I am not a racist but I am about the rule of law applying equally to all. If I get up and I block a road, I know that they are going to arrest me in a New York minute. If I commit a crime, I am going to get arrested, but that does not seem to be what is happening.

In Toronto, there was a protest. Protesters were calling death to Jews. They were harassing them in their own neighbourhood. One of the Jewish women went to the police and said to arrest these people. The police said that there was nothing they could do. What is the point of having laws if we do not enforce them? The federal government puts the rule of law in place. The federal government has a responsibility. If the rule of law is not being enforced by the police, it can be escalated to the RCMP. The military can be brought in.

We know, in the peaceful protest of the freedom convoy, that Liberals decided to declare the emergency measures act, which was deemed illegal because it did not meet the threshold.

What is the threshold? There has to be violence taking place across the country. We can check that box. There has to be proof that there is foreign interference. There has been a lot of proof about the Iranians backing up the pro-Palestinian protests, so we can check the box there.

It has to be beyond the resources of the police and the existing lots, so I would argue that maybe it is time to revisit that whole one. Of course, right now, even though it was declared illegal, not a single one of the individuals who voted for it is seeing any consequence at all while they appeal the process, whereas I, if I committed a crime, could appeal from prison. Again, that is not acceptable

Now we know that the reason that the government will not produce the documents is that there is criminality; there is something to hide there. It is not the first time. We have seen this pattern of behaviour before. We saw it with respect to the Winnipeg lab documents, where what was being hidden was the fact that we were complicit with the Chinese military in providing it with viruses to work on developing bio-weapons. What did the Liberals do to keep that from coming forward? Well, first of all, it was the usual: They redacted the documents, claimed national security, and did not give anything. Then, they sued the Speaker of the House to keep the Liberals from coming forward with these documents. It has dragged out for years and we may be here for years, holding them to account on this slush fund.

We saw it as well with respect to the WE Charity scandal. Clearly, there was something going on there that would have been a violation if the evidence came forward, but the Liberals claimed cabinet confidence and all of these kinds of things. When it got hot, they decided to prorogue and call an election so that they could go back to square one. It is a pattern of behaviour of not only undermining the rule of law in this country, but of obstructing when we are trying to get to the bottom and find criminality. That, again, is not a surprise to me when I look over there from the Prime Minister on down to his cabinet ministers and to many other individuals who have been in the Liberal government here during my term. Since 2015, we had Joe Peschisolido, whose law firm was accused of money laundering; Raj Grewal, charged with fraud; and multiple RCMP and police investigations that continue to go on today. We have the minister from Edmonton who is under investigation by the police and there are a number of fraud suits against the company that he was involved in. Therefore, it is not a surprise, but it is unacceptable.

The good news is that it was not like this before the Prime Minister arrived with the Liberals who are corrupt and it will not be like that when we get rid of them. We common-sense Conservatives would come with a plan to stop the crime. We would stop the gun crime by upping the security at our borders to keep out the smuggling of illegal guns that the police associations are saying is 85% of the gun crime. We would bring down the number of car thefts by doing more scanning at the ports. We have plans that would get the hard drugs off our streets and it would be jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders. That is what we need in this country. We have good laws, but we have to start enforcing them. We cannot keep reinforcing to criminals that they can commit a crime without any consequences at all, which is essentially what happens when they commit a crime and are out again in the afternoon to commit another crime. We have all heard the statistics about the 6,000 crimes that were committed in Vancouver in one year by 40 individuals. I would argue that to take those 40 individuals off the streets, away from where they are damaging the public, is the wiser way, the common-sense way and it is something that we would do.

Again today, I call on the government to produce the papers and give them to the RCMP. It is the right thing to do. It is the way we would uphold the rule of law and not be secretive and not try to hide wrongdoing. If we do not do that, we will continue to be here on this side of the House speaking out against corruption and a lack of accountability in the Liberal government. We will make sure that when we become government, we restore accountability, restore the rule of law, and uphold and enforce the rule of law.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I have two quick points.

We heard a fairly significant rant about crime, as if under Conservative regimes no crime exists in Canada. Nothing could be further from the truth. We all know that, in fact, one of the individuals whom the member was making reference to, McClintic, was reclassified to medium security in 2014, when Stephen Harper was Prime Minister.

When we talk about contempt of Parliament, all one needs to know is that the leader of the Conservative Party today was the parliamentary secretary to Stephen Harper, the only prime minister in the entire British Commonwealth held in contempt of Parliament. One of the reasons was that he was not providing information to the Parliament of Canada.

With respect to the point that the Conservatives feel that they have this right, yes, they have unfettered rights, but they also are in borderline contempt of Parliament. Giving the documents directly to the RCMP is something that the RCMP does not want and that the Auditor General of Canada and other legal experts have said that we should not be doing, but the Conservatives say we should listen to the Conservative Party. Gee whiz, how tough a decision is that?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, members will notice exactly what is happening here. I am bringing up direct issues that are related to what is happening today, and the Liberals are diverting by talking about what happened in 2014, and what happened way before. My mother used to say that we cannot change the past, we can only change the future. That is why we are calling on the government to produce the papers, to start being accountable and to start enforcing the rule of law in our country.

The RCMP gets tips all the time from Crime Stoppers, letters dropped off and calls on alleging criminal activity. It is their due diligence to follow up on those. We know the whistle-blower said there was criminality. We know there is criminality. That is why the Liberals are not producing the documents. I invite them to prove me wrong. Let them produce the documents.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I was concerned about in the past was when Stephen Harper cut the CBSA by over 1,000 staff, including the teams that actually used to do joint operations with the FBI, U.S. Border Patrol and so forth. The reason I raise it as relevant is that we are short at least two training tranches and upwards of 2,000 to 3,000 CBSA officers on the border right now.

Perhaps the member could provide some information about how this has affected our border capabilities, especially when we lost the embedded teams on that particular file.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, this question allows me to say, once again, we are diverting back to the past. Let us look at what our Leader of the Opposition has said he will do when he becomes prime minister.

He will increase the resources at the border to protect our border security, to detect illegal weapons and drugs coming in, and to scan the containers that are taking stolen vehicles overseas. He has been clear that the U.S. is concerned about the security of our border and about our lackadaisical job on security clearance on immigration.

We will take care of that when Conservatives are in government. Call a carbon tax election. Let us get it done now.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for her great words in that very informative speech.

At the heart of this situation is a tremendous scandal of the SDTC issue, and the $400 million that has gone missing. The Auditor General has confirmed that.

In my riding of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, the biggest two concerns right now are the economy and crime. I would like to know if the member has any ideas on how this $400 million could go towards helping people in the economy right now and towards fighting crime, the two biggest issues in my area.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my riding, the food bank is running out of food regularly, and I know that is happening across the country because people can simply not afford to eat. Twenty-five per cent of children are going hungry. One in five family members are eating less because they cannot afford to eat. Scurvy has returned.

That $400 million would do a lot to feed the hungry here in Canada. We are spending money overseas like drunken sailors, but here in Canada, we have people who are suffering, and that money could have gone to them.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to start by saying that I agree with that member. What happened in Montreal is absolutely disgusting, and we all need to stand against that. Peaceful, legal protest is completely in order. When it is not legal, then it is not in order.

I must admit, I was a little taken aback. I was working away here, I heard her say something, and I had to stop to get my staff to go back, review the tape and get me the quote. She said, “I am about the rule of law applying equally to all. If I get up and I block a road, I know that they are going to arrest me in a New York minute.”

She was talking about what was going on in Montreal. I do not ever remember her saying that when people were blocking the roads out front for three weeks during the convoy protest. As a matter of fact, according to CTV, and I just looked it up, when she was a leadership candidate, she was out there taking selfies with them.

Can the member explain to this House the hypocrisy or the double standard? The member is all about arresting people when they block the roads, except if they are people that she wants to take selfies with in front of Parliament?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member listened to my speech, or at least part of it. That is a good thing. Maybe he missed the many public statements I made during the “freedom convoy” when I said protesters were illegally blocking the roads and it was not acceptable. The rest of it was peaceful, but that was not acceptable. When they blocked the bridges in Sarnia—Lambton, members will find me on the public record saying exactly the same thing. The rule of law has to apply equally to all.

I noticed all kinds of enforcement with the “freedom convoy”, but I do not see that same enforcement with the pro-Palestinian demonstrations.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague said the government is spending like a drunken sailor, but I wonder if she wants to apologize to sailors, who, of course, spend their own money.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. I apologize to sailors and military people, who have to buy their own boots and supplies while the government fills its Liberal insider friends' pockets with millions and millions of dollars, from Frank Baylis and the $172 million for ventilators we never used, to the Minister of International Trade. I could go on and on. I apologize—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. deputy government House leader.

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

I cannot let this one go, Madam Speaker. Moments ago, the member said she called on the convoy to not block the streets, but she had a post on Facebook on January 31, 2022, where she said, “Meeting with hard working truckers in Ottawa!” A story in a Lambton newspaper says she told the Prime Minister to sit down with these people and talk to them.

I cannot find a single comment online about her telling people they should not be blocking the streets. I can find tons of pictures of her taking selfies with protesters and eating dinner with them, but I cannot find a single comment that she claims she made. Can she tell me where I might be able to locate these comments?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am surprised the member is not able to find them, because I certainly ranted quite a bit, especially about the Prime Minister's comments on the protesters. He called them a “fringe minority” with “unacceptable views” that should not be tolerated. I think that is what he said. I certainly spoke up about that at the time.

Once again, we see what the Liberals are doing. They are distracting. They want to go back. They do not want to talk about why they are not producing the documents or the scandals and corruption going on today. They want to distract.

It is not going to work. Canadians are aware. They are watching and suffering. We need a carbon tax election.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I ask for unanimous consent to table a picture of the member wining and dining the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

That is not a point of order.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Simcoe North.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

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—

[Ed Fast]

Cavalier.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very cavalier. The hon. member for Abbotsford is a great member.

I think it is time for accountability. If the Liberals do not want to get the $400 million back, then maybe they should have some ministerial accountability for this situation. What would that look like?

It is true that a former minister was the minister in place when these individuals were appointed to the board, but the current minister was made well aware of the improprieties and conflicts of interest while he was in the chair.

I quite enjoy the Minister of Industry's enthusiasm and the flair that he brings to this place, but he was made aware of these improprieties and left those people on the board. Not only that, he recommended that one of the biggest offenders get a promotion. Ms. Andrée-Lise Méthot was promoted from the SDTC board to the board of the Infrastructure Bank. When her appointment was made, there were rumblings that there were problems at SDTC, and yet the government still believed it was appropriate to give that person a promotion. For the life of me, I cannot understand why there is no ministerial accountability pretty much for anything that happens on that side of the House.

Here is the way it works. When there is a problem, someone will stand in the House of Commons and say that it is unacceptable. The minister responsible will then say that, as minister, they will find out what has happened and then sit down. Ministers are not thinking that, as ministers, they are responsible for what happens in their departments. Worse, when they do know that something has happened, they should take action.

As the Auditor General found, it turned out that $400 million went to the wrong people. Gee whiz, as the parliamentary secretary likes to say, does the government not think there should be some accountability for that? We would think so when we are talking about that kind of money. Has the government even identified any individual who has been reprimanded or lost their job? Has it even attempted to recover the funds? Has it actually had any of the funds repaid? Is the government willing to compromise on this motion and present some other options in order for us to get back to the business of the day that it so desperately wants to get back to? No, it has not done any of that, because it has such a disrespect for Parliament.

There has been absolutely no contrition. A member of the government has not stood to say that not only did it make a mistake, but that it did not act fast enough and that it would do everything in its power to get the $400 million back. This is a government that is now thumbing its nose at the Auditor General for the second time.

I need to remind the House that for basically the first time in a very long time, the CRA was given very poor marks for the auditing of CERB and wage subsidy benefits. The CRA specifically said that it did not accept the Auditor General's findings. That has rarely happened in the history of Parliament. The CRA did not pay any seemingly big price for that, so what does it do now?

The Auditor General says there were $400 million, which have not gone missing since we know where they are, that went to the wrong people. The government says that it is no big deal, that it will not try to get it back. The Auditor General could not have been more clear about the conflicts of interest that exist, actual conflicts of interest, not just perceived ones. The legal test is that they are one and the same, but at least in this case, they were bona fide actual conflicts of interest.

The government could get the money back. It could propose some alternatives for us to get past this impasse. However, I view this as the job of the nation, the work of the nation to find out where this money is, to get it back and to have some accountability.

The Liberal government likes to talk about the expense scandals of senators and Mike Duffy. Let me remind the House one more time that this was the only scandal in Canadian history where the taxpayer was paid back. The big scandal was that Mr. Duffy's expenses, which were incorrect and wrong, were paid back. The scandal was that the cheque was paid back to the taxpayer.

I can feel the palpable desire for my colleagues on the other side, my very great friends, to ask me questions. They might have checked the price of Bitcoin this morning and be a little upset about that. They cannot really stand up here and use their same old tropes.

I might not have an opportunity to do so later, so I want to wish you, Madam Speaker, a merry Christmas. I want to wish everyone in Simcoe North a very merry Christmas. To each and all of our families, joyeux Noël. Let us bring it home.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I thank the hon. member for the kind wishes, which I return.

Questions and comments, the hon. deputy House leader for the government.

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

Madam Speaker, if the member would like to avoid answering my question and talk about Bitcoin and what he perceives the Conservative policy to be around that, I would encourage him to do that.

On two occasions, the member said that there had never even been a compromise, that nobody even offered a compromise. The Speaker literally is telling us what the compromise is. The Speaker, through a ruling, has said to send this to PROC so that PROC can study it and figure out the best way to do this. It is as though he does not even know what is going on in here. The compromise is in the direction from the Speaker, yet the member has no concept of that. I do not think he knows that, because he just comes in here and goes on and on about how there is no compromise, but, literally, it is on the table.

Could he please tell us about Bitcoin?