Debates of Nov. 26th, 2024

(Return tabled)

Question No.3002—

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

With regard to information held by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on Northern cod, Greenland halibut and redfish: (a) for Northern cod, what is the average catch rate (i) per net per hour in a 5.5 inch mesh in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization's (NAFO) areas 2J, 3K and 3L in kilograms, (ii) per hook used in NAFO areas 2J, 3K and 3L in kilograms, broken down by area in each of the last five years, based on fish harvester logbook submissions; (b) for Greenland halibut, what (i) is the average catch rate per net per hour in NAFO areas 2J, 3K and 3L in gill nets broken down by area in each of the last five years, (ii) percentage of migratory area is within Canadian waters compared to NAFO waters outside Canada's 200 mile limit, (iii) percentage of the quota is issued to the Canadian fleet vs NAFO allocation, (iv) has the biomass been for each of the last five years for the stock inside and outside Canada's 200 mile limit; and (c) for redfish, what is the biomass in NAFO areas 2J and 3K in each of the last seven years, broken down by area and year?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

U.S. Tariffs on Canadian Products

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The Chair has notice of two requests for an emergency debate concerning the same subject. I will invite the hon. member for Windsor West and the hon. member for Carleton to make brief interventions.

The hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to address this very serious issue with regard to Donald J. Trump, the incoming president of the United States. He has issued a threat to Canada's economic security, as well as our border security. In particular, a 25% tariff on trade is being proposed to be put on Canada. This would affect an industry that I am familiar with in my area, the auto industry, and every industry across Canada. It would also affect our capabilities as a nation to provide subsistence and good jobs for our citizens.

I believe the Prime Minister has already indicated that he will have a meeting with the premiers, and we support that initiative. There needs to be consensus and a strong position provided. However, members in the House of Commons need to participate in this debate. In addition, going forward, there is potential for a trade war that could erupt with our number one trading partner. This is really important and very serious. Canadians are already struggling to get by right now. They have enough difficulties with shelter and food, and job insecurity should not also be brought to bear.

In summary, New Democrats are calling for this emergency debate because of the serious nature of this. In past practice, Donald Trump has moved against Canada's interests with regard to trade barriers and other issues we had to deal with. What is notable in his expression of interest about this subject matter with Canada is that he has also challenged our border service officers, which is—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am going to interrupt the hon. member for Windsor West for a moment. There is a point of order being raised by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like a clarification of the rules. When members want to get the attention of the Speaker, my understanding is that they are to stand in their place and the Speaker will acknowledge them.

The leader of the Conservative Party has been standing in his place for quite a while and has not been recognized. If he is standing on a point of order, in defence of the leader of the Conservative Party, he should be recognized.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Is the member for Carleton rising on a point of order? If not, then I will invite the hon. member to sit down until the hon. member for Windsor West has finished his intervention.

I would ask the hon. member for Windsor West to please continue his intervention.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will summarize and be brief so the member for Carleton can rise quickly on this as well. I just want to conclude by noting that Mr. Trump has also questioned the safety and security of our border. I want to remind the Canadian public that in 2014, we lost over 1,000 different CBSA officers who were laid off through cuts. Subsequently, during COVID, there were two tranches of CBSA officers who could not be trained.

Right now there is a shortage of 2,000 to 3,000 officers on the front lines that affects our capabilities as a nation, and this should be part of the general discussion because Mr. Trump has also identified it as a weakness for our nation.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we are facing this economic threat at a time when Canada is very weak. Our economy is in free fall. Our GDP has shrunk faster than any other G7 country since the year before the COVID-19 pandemic. Twenty-five per cent of Canadians are living in poverty. The cost of housing has doubled. It has increased faster than in any other G7 country. Canadian families have more debt than in any other G7 country. This is all before President Trump's tariff threat.

We reject Mr. Trump's threats and propose an emergency debate to develop a plan that puts Canada first, a plan to protect our economy and our security. That is why we are calling for this debate. After nine years, Canadians are suffering. They can no longer cope with economic threats, especially after the damage caused by the current government here. Mr. Trump's tariffs, combined with the Prime Minister's taxes here in Canada, are untenable for Canadians. We need an action plan now.

Today's economic threat comes at a time of maximum economic and national security weakness. Our economy is collapsing, with the GDP per capita smaller than it was ten years ago, having dropped more than that of any other G7 country since the year before COVID. Our housing costs have doubled. Food bank use has doubled. Housing inflation has been the worst in the G7, as has household debt compared to income. Half a trillion dollars' worth of investment has poured out of our country into the U.S. Canadians already face a crippling quadrupling of the carbon tax, which by itself would send hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs south of the border.

Now, sensing weakness, President-elect Trump threatens massive tariffs on our people and our economy. Canadians will not be able to eat, to heat their home and to house themselves if they face the combination of NDP-Liberal tax hikes and American tariffs. That is why common-sense Conservatives are calling for an emergency debate to develop a plan to protect our economy and our security, a plan that puts Canada first.

We want a Canada first plan to defend our people. We as a Conservative team ask for the Speaker's approval to hold the debate as early as tonight. Let us put partisanship aside. Let us stand up for our people. Let us put our country first and foremost. Let us bring it home.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank all hon. members for their interventions. I am now prepared to grant the request for an emergency debate concerning U.S. tariffs on Canadian products. This debate will take place later today at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

The House resumed from November 25 consideration of the motion, of the amendment as amended and of the amendment to the amendment.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to the motion again today.

I would like to note with interest that the Leader of the Opposition just made an excellent request for an emergency debate. I am glad it was granted, and we look forward to talking more about the dual threats of both the Liberal economic plan, which is a disaster, and the proposed 25% tariffs that President-elect Trump has proposed. That dual threat really is something we need to be very concerned about, and I am glad we will continue to talk about it later tonight.

What the House is seized with now is a motion and a matter that have been before the House for quite some time. That is because the government refuses to obey a lawful order of the House to turn over documents regarding the very concerning scandal surrounding Sustainable Development Technology Canada's giving government contracts to Liberal insiders. The Auditor General found very troubling evidence that this was done

Millions of dollars were given to Liberal insiders, sometimes for zero work. Money was simply transferred from hard-working taxpayers to the government coffers and into the pockets of Liberal insiders. This is what we are here to talk about.

I want to go back to the original motion that started the whole thing in June. On June 10, the motion proposed by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and seconded by the member for South Shore—St. Margarets stated:

That the House order the government, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) and the Auditor General of Canada each to deposit with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, within 30 days of the adoption of this order, the following documents, created or dated since January 1, 2017, which are in its or her possession, custody or control:

(a) all files, documents, briefing notes, memoranda, e-mails or any other correspondence exchanged among government officials regarding SDTC;

(b) contribution and funding agreements to which SDTC is a party;

(c) records detailing financial information of companies in which past or present directors or officers of SDTC had ownership, management or other financial interests;

(d) SDTC conflict of interest declarations;

(e) minutes of SDTC's Board of Directors and Project Review Committee;

(f) all briefing notes, memoranda, e-mails or any other correspondence exchanged between SDTC directors and SDTC management; and

(g) in the case of the Auditor General of Canada, any other document, not described in paragraphs (a) to (f), upon which she relied in preparing her Report 6—Sustainable Development Technology Canada, which was laid upon the table on Tuesday, June 4, 2024;

provided that,

(h) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall promptly thereafter notify the Speaker whether each entity produced documents as ordered, and the Speaker, in turn, shall forthwith inform the House of the notice of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel but, if the House stands adjourned, the Speaker shall lay the notice upon the table pursuant to Standing Order 32(1); and

(i) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall provide forthwith any documents received by him, pursuant to this order, to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The question was put on the main motion, as amended, and it was agreed to on the following division: yeas 174 and nays 148. The House voted on the motion and agreed on June 10 that we would request the documents, which the government, the Auditor General and SDTC have in their possession, and that those documents would be turned over to the RCMP. Therefore a lawful order for the production of papers was received.

The problem has become that the Liberal government believes it is above and can ignore that lawful order of the House of Commons. Even though the House has made it very clear what its intentions are and what it requires of the government, in a lawful order, the government has decided it is above it. Liberals have decided they can ignore the demand of the House of Commons because they believe their government, their Prime Minister's Office and their Privy Council Office know better than the House of Commons. That is not how it works.

The Speaker himself ruled that the government had violated the privileges of the House in refusing to acknowledge, accept and obey a lawful order of the House. The government is in breach of our privileges. It is a prima facie case that the government has breached the privileges of every member of Parliament and the House, because it is not up to the Prime Minister to determine which lawful motions he ignores or accepts. As the Speaker said very clearly in his ruling:

The procedural precedents and authorities are abundantly clear. The House has the undoubted right to order the production of any and all documents from any entity or individual it deems necessary to carry out its duties. Moreover, these powers are a settled matter, at least as far as the House is concerned.

He went on to quote Speaker Milliken, who said, “procedural authorities are categorical in repeatedly asserting the powers of the House in ordering the production of documents. No exceptions are made for any category of government documents”.

The government has tried to invent its own reasons and to create exceptions where there are none. The House is the only entity that can grant exceptions, yet for months now the government has refused to turn over the documents. I wonder why. We know it is because the government has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar once again; Liberal Party insiders have rewarded themselves with taxpayer money.

The Auditor General found that the government had turned Sustainable Development Technology Canada into a slush fund for Liberal insiders. A recording of a senior civil servant slammed the outright incompetence of the government, which gave 390 million dollars' worth of contracts inappropriately.

This is not made up by a member of the House or a media source; The Auditor General found that SDTC gave $58 million to 10 ineligible projects that, on occasions, could not demonstrate an environmental benefit or development of green technology. In other words, $58 million went to 10 contracts that had nothing to do with SDTC and did not fulfill its mandates.

Board members held a conflict of interest in $334 million over 186 cases. The Auditor General did not look at the whole program; she just took a sampling of it and found 186 cases in which the government had allowed board members who held a conflict of interest to get a total of $334 million, of which $58 million went to projects without ensuring that contribution agreement terms were met. The best part is that some of the projects were both ineligible and conflicted, so they had the double whammy.

The Auditor General made it clear that the blame for the scandal falls very clearly on the Prime Minister and his Minister of Industry, who did not sufficiently monitor the contracts given to Liberal insiders.

The matter was brought up as soon as the House returned from the summer recess, because the government had failed during the summer recess to meet the requirements of the House. They were not suggestions, a good idea, a guideline or a time frame. The exact times, the deadlines, were outright ignored in some cases.

This is a refusal to acknowledge the supremacy of the House when it comes to demanding the production of papers. Sometimes the Liberals just said no. Other times, in their infinite wisdom, they said that we cannot see some of the information, and they blacked it all out so the relevant information was not not included. At still other times they ignored the deadlines or were late, and those sorts of things.

In other words, they showed contempt for the House and continue to show contempt for the House. We could go on to other matters today if the government released the documents, as ordered by the House. This is not a suggestion. This is not just from the official opposition. The majority of the members of the House of Commons, 174 members, have demanded this, as is our right as members of Parliament. It is very clearly laid out that we have individual privileges and rights as members, but the House has collective rights as well, and a key one is demanding the production of papers. The government might not like it. It might like to retroactively say that the motion was not in order, but it does not get to make that decision. The House alone decides. The House has decided, and the government continues to ignore the House.

We are now approaching December. We have the threat of a 25% tariff on our doorstep. We have plummeting standards of living for Canadians vis-à-vis our American neighbours. Food prices are up 35%, gas prices are up 50%, rent is up 33% and mortgage payments are up 73% after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government. There is a crisis out there, but the government refuses to comply with the demands of the Speaker, refuses to comply with the demands of the House and continues to hold up the House's business. It refuses to acknowledge, accept and comply with the House order. Until the Liberals does that, we will continue to debate this motion. We will continue to discuss and demand that the rights and privileges of the House are respected. The Prime Minister does not get to simply overrule the rights, privileges and will of the elected House of Commons.

It comes back to this: Who do we serve? We serve the people who sent us here. I serve the people of Chilliwack—Hope. I do not serve the member for Carleton, and members of Parliament opposite should not serve the Prime Minister. They should serve their constituents. They should remember that unless they sit in the first two rows, their job is to hold the government accountable, just as it is our job.

Many of the members who get up every day to defend this nonsense are not even members of the government; they are members of the caucus that holds government. They have a duty to hold the government to account, and they fail in that duty every day they defend a Prime Minister overruling the rights, privileges and lawful motions of the House of Commons.

This is not the first time they have done it. When the Winnipeg lab scandal came to the fore just before the last election, the government took the House of Commons and the the predecessor to the Speaker to court. The Liberals refused to accept a motion. They refused to accept a Speaker's ruling, and they basically told the Speaker they would see him in court. They would not obey the House order and would not accept the vote of members of Parliament, who are sent here to represent their constituents.

That is how this is supposed to work. We represent our constituencies. We represent our constituents. There is no higher power in the land than the House of Commons, not the Prime Minister, not the PCO, not the bureaucracy. They do not get to decide when the House has already made a decision.

For months, the government has refused to accept a lawful motion of the House. That should be concerning to all members and all Canadians, because while in this case the Liberals might not like what the motion says, might quibble with what will happen with the documents and might try to hide behind the fig leaf of technicality, what they do when they undermine the supremacy of the House, the rights and privileges of the House, is they give license to a future prime minister to do it again.

If the Liberals say they will not accept the rights and privileges of the House of Commons and the motions it passes, a future prime minister will simply give the back of his hand to the House and decide that he or she alone knows better. We do not have that kind of system. The Prime Minister is supposed to be the servant of the House, not its master, and for too long the Prime Minister has believed that he is above members of Parliament on both his side and this side. We have seen the evidence of that, with dozens of his own members wishing he would take a walk in the snow. It snowed a bit today, so hope springs eternal, but we know what the Prime Minister thinks of his own caucus. Certainly, we know what he thinks of the motion that has been passed.

What are the Liberals protecting? Why have they gone to such lengths that for three months they have held up the work of the House by refusing to obey an order of the House? It must be pretty bad. Those documents must be worse than the $58 million going to 10 projects for Liberal insiders and the $334 million of questionable projects going to board of director members with conflicts of interest.

We know that the Minister of Environment has been implicated in this as well, having lobbied for a project while he was outside of cabinet and having received benefits while he was in cabinet. That is the record of the government. The Liberals are hiding the documents after saying that they would have the most open and transparent government in history. The only thing open is the chequebooks for Liberal insiders.

It is like an open bar if someone is a Liberal insider. They get access to government contracts. One member, one of whose names I could say because he has another name, has resigned from cabinet finally after fighting it. It is the member for Edmonton Centre. We saw what he was willing to do to get his hands on government money from his Liberal friends.

We are calling once again on the government to respect Parliament, to respect the vote that was held in Parliament in June, to respect the ruling of the Speaker that was issued in September and to respect the months of debate that have been happening in the House. It is clear that we will not go quietly into the night. We will not let this be shuffled off to some committee where the government can get its allies in the other parties to quietly bury it, as happens every day in the House when Conservatives bring forward motions. Behind closed doors at committee, they are quietly shuffled off and voted down or watered down.

This has to be decided here, because the vote happened here and the Speaker's ruling happened here. This can all go away if the government simply listens to the will of Parliament and respects its rights and privileges. We need to get back to the work that we have been called here to do. We believe that the government is imperiling our economy. We need to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the deficit, fix the budget and stop the crime. Those are our priorities, but our number one priority is ensuring that the House is respected, that the Speaker is respected, that Parliament is respected and that the government does the right thing and the lawful thing. It must turn over the documents today so we can get back to doing the people's business.

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

Mr. Speaker, the motion asks to have the issue go before PROC. That is what the member should be talking about. What he chose to talk about instead is a motion in which the House says that it wants documents collected, unredacted, and sent directly to the RCMP. The Conservatives are upset because we are listening to what the RCMP is saying. We are listening to what the Auditor General of Canada is saying and other legal experts. The Conservatives have overreached here. That is the bottom line.

Let me quote a law expert, referring to the multi-million dollar game that the Conservatives are playing at great expense in many ways. Here is a quote from Steven Chaplin, former legal counsel:

It is time for the House of Commons to admit it was wrong, and to move on. There has now been three weeks of debate on a questionable matter of privilege based on the misuse of the House’ power to order producing documents....

Why should we listen to the self-serving leader of the Conservative Party over the RCMP, the Auditor General and other legal counsel?

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

I would remind folks to keep questions and comments as succinct as possible.

The hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the parliamentary secretary who he should listen to, and that is Parliament. One hundred and seventy-four members of Parliament voted yes to the motion, while 148 members, all Liberals, voted against it. I know the member might not like that, but 174 to 148 is all that matters.

Parliament has decided that these documents have been requested, and that is our right. As the Speaker and Speaker Milliken said, that right is uncontested as far as the House is concerned. If we want to put limitations on the types of documents we hand over to the RCMP, we will decide, as the House, what those limitations will be. What the parliamentary secretary is talking about is undermining the sovereignty of the House of Commons, and Conservatives will not stand for it.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I remember when Stephen Harper was found in contempt of Parliament, the only prime minister ever found in contempt. He was found in contempt over an issue very similar but much more serious, the Afghan detainee documents. Allegations had been made that Canada was involved in turning over what often turned out to be low-value suspects for torture and intimidation, in violation of the Geneva Convention. Stephen Harper ignored Parliament, refused to turn over the documents and then prorogued Parliament and shut down the democratic process.

In this case, which is about turning over documents, the Speaker ruled that this matter should go to the PROC committee. I trust that members of the committee are going to make a decision about whether the Prime Minister is in contempt. However, to me, the real contempt of the House is that despite a ruling to send this to committee, the member who lives in the 19-room mansion Stornoway has shut down our work as parliamentarians, interfering with our rights and privileges. Meanwhile, the Trump agenda is rolling on, and we are sitting here as a broken democracy.

The role of Parliament is to ship this matter to committee. Members there can make a decision and return it to the House, and then we can decide whether the Prime Minister is in contempt. What is contempt is the refusal of the Conservatives to let us get to our work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I see that the old habit of supporting the Liberal government at all costs and at all times is part of the member's DNA. It is part of what he wants to do.

He can talk to his own House leader about how the New Democrats use their time in the House. We have continued to talk about this matter. The member himself voted in favour of this motion, and he should be concerned that the government has ignored the result.

I was not elected at the time, but I remember that during a minority Parliament, Michael Ignatieff, Jack Layton and I forget who else pushed a motion forward and found the government in contempt. What happened after that? The 2011 election happened, and we had a strong, stable national Conservative majority government.

I would agree with the member. What we need is an election to really solve this. He is running away into retirement, but we will see everyone else on the hustings. I like our chances.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that gives me the perfect segue. We agree that Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, was badly mismanaged. The fund has been dismantled and everything is being transferred to the National Research Council of Canada, or NRC. If the Conservatives came to power, would they commit to maintaining funding for important sustainable development and green technology companies?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe it was a Conservative government that created this fund. Certainly, under the Conservative government, there was none of this insider trading, back-scratching and conflicts of interest, because we made it clear that this was an arm's-length entity. Navdeep Bains was warned that by politicizing the appointment of the chair, he risked ruining the entire fund, and that is exactly what happened, with $58 million in contracts going to 10 Liberal insiders for no work done that we can determine and $334 million for 186 conflicts of interest. That is the Liberal record.

We will continue to fund programs that deliver results for Canadians. We will not go down the road of the Liberals, which is about scratching their own backs, rewarding Liberal insiders, and then when caught, refusing to hand over documents to the RCMP.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while the member for Chilliwack—Hope was giving an answer about the supremacy of Parliament in a democratic society, where the sanctity of votes in this chamber have to count for something as an expression of the democratic will of people, the parliamentary secretary was heckling the member and disagreeing that votes in Parliament were the final say in this matter, that Parliament was the voice of the people. I want to bring that to the attention of the member for Chilliwack—Hope, that he was being heckled by the member, who disagrees with him that the votes in Parliament are the final say in whom the Liberals should listen to when the government has had an order to release documents.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the Liberal member does not believe Parliament is supreme, that Parliament does not have the authority to make its own decisions and to have those decisions respected by the government. That is what the parliamentary secretary is saying. He is saying that the Government of Canada does not need to respect the votes and decisions that are made by the House of Commons, which means that the people whom we elect here do not have power in this place, and that is a very significant problem for the Liberal Party to wrestle with.

When the Liberals believe they have one master and it is the Prime Minister of Canada, that means they have disenfranchised all the voters in all our ridings. If they simply take orders from the Prime Minister and his department and are willing to do their bidding in contravention of a House order of a Speaker's ruling, that is truly contemptible.