Debates of Nov. 4th, 2024

Chief Electoral Officer

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

Honourable colleagues, pursuant to section 536 of the Canada Elections Act, it is my duty to lay upon the table a report from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on proposed amendments to the Canada Elections Act.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The House resumed from November 1 consideration of the motion, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, right before we concluded on Friday, the member for Louis-Hébert asked me a question about the Conservatives' dollar-for-dollar rule. It is a question I am very pleased to address because the Conservatives believe we need to fix the budget. That means when a new spending commitment is made, we need to be able to identify where the money will come from. This is unlike the Liberals, who continually make new spending commitments and have no plan for where to get the money for them, other than through higher taxes and higher inflation.

The Conservatives, when we have made announcements, have been clear about where the money would come from. The member for Louis-Hébert was asking in general, for some of these proposals, where the money would come from. I will shed some more light on some of the key areas. We have seen a dramatic increase in spending on outside consultants providing advice to the government that could be provided by the public service. We have seen incredible abuses in the procurement system. One of many areas where we can very easily save money is in outside consulting and procurement, by ending all of the abuse we have seen there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad my colleague talked about outsourcing and highly paid consultants, something the NDP has been deeply concerned about dating back to the Harper government. Outsourcing doubled under the Harper government. It has actually quadrupled under the Liberal government.

One thing we have been trying to do as New Democrats is take a real look at companies like Deloitte, for example. It is the highest paid beneficiary in all of external consulting. The Conservatives, who run the government operations committee through the chair and their members, have not allowed OGGO to study and take a close examination of Deloitte despite many requests by the New Democrats.

It is no surprise that the Liberals do not want to look at it, but I will note that former cabinet minister Pierre Pettigrew and former Conservative cabinet minister Peter MacKay sit as managing directors of Deloitte. It is no surprise why the Conservatives do not want to take up a closer examination of Deloitte. They want to talk about McKinsey in their rabbit hole chase, but they do not want to look at Deloitte.

Will my colleague tell us when the Conservatives are going to open up the books on Deloitte and take a hard look at it? Why is Deloitte getting such an obscene number of outsourced contracts from Canadian taxpayers?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in broad strokes, the member's description of the OGGO committee's agenda is simply incorrect. I know he has not been a member of OGGO for a very long time, but I understand he may be back. I look forward to giving him the opportunity to get reacquainted with the committee's agenda and working with him again at that point.

Here is what happened with respect to the studies on outsourcing for McKinsey, Deloitte and other companies. The committee ordered various documents related to the outsourcing to McKinsey. We wanted to pursue the government on those documents because the documents we ordered were not provided. However, the NDP folded like a cheap suit and would not work with us to demand that we get those documents. On the one hand, the NDP refused to follow up to get the documents, but on the other hand, it tried to shift us over to another company.

The Conservatives would say, no, let us do the work; let us look at every instance of outsourcing, but let us get the documents we asked for. We cannot say we do not need these documents and then jump to something else right when we are in the middle of pursuing one particular issue. The NDP should stand with us in ordering the production of these documents. Then we can get the work done.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here we are, I believe in week four, still debating a privilege motion because the Liberals are refusing to comply with the order of the House made back in June about the green slush fund. They are refusing to produce the documents.

What are the opportunity costs here? What is being lost in this chamber when we could be debating important issues that are relevant to Canadians in this day and age? For example, what about housing and our leader's recent announcement about cutting the GST on housing so we can build more homes for Canadians?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the future of this Parliament, I believe it is time now for a carbon tax election. It is time to put to Canadians what we have put forward, our proposal to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, as well as the Liberal government's record of failure over the last nine years.

Right now, the Liberals have refused to hand over documents that Parliament has ordered. This is why there is a focus on this question of privilege. We are stuck on this question of privilege because the Liberals refuse to hand over documents that the House has ordered. This could end right away if the government would hand over the documents.

Moreover, as we have seen, the green slush fund demonstrates the cost, the corruption and the crime that have been growing in this country over the last nine years. With costs up, crime up and time up, we should go to a carbon tax election now and have a Conservative government that will really get things done in this place.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member who asked the previous question asked what it was costing us to debate this privilege motion for the fourth week in a row and what we could be doing instead.

I would like to remind my colleagues of something rather important. The opposition parties agree with this motion and the Bloc Québécois is prepared to vote in favour of it. If we adopt it again, the government will have no choice but to hand over the documents. Right now we are caught in a sort of vicious circle, like the chicken-and-egg dilemma. Members want the government to hand over the documents to put an end to the debate, but at the same time, we know we are winning the debate.

When will we vote on this motion? If my colleague cannot answer that question, can he tell me how many more Conservative members will rise to speak on this issue so that we can mentally prepare? Is this debate going to go on until Christmas?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me seize on the idiom the member used. What is going to come first, the chicken or the egg: the study proposed at committee or getting the documents? The chicken needs to lay the egg, that is, the documents are needed first, and then the study can be done. If we send this to a committee without having the documents, the committee will be severely limited in the work it can do.

It is an established principle that Parliament has a right to order the production of documents. We are prepared for this privilege question to end right away, today, in five minutes, if the government hands over the documents. For the public accounts committee and other committees that have been studying this issue to properly do the work, the government needs to be responsive and forthcoming in adhering to what Parliament has asked for. In this case, that means documents that the law clerk can provide to the RCMP and allowing committees to proceed with the work they need to do.

It is very clear where we are right now. As soon as the government hands over these documents, we can proceed to other business. The government has refused to recognize the long, well-established privileges of Parliament and the principle of parliamentary sovereignty in our system of government. By the way, the government has failed to recognize that principle on a broad host of other cases as well. Starting with the Winnipeg labs documents and in many cases since, the Liberals have failed to show respect for this institution.

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

Mr. Speaker, Steven Chaplin is a former senior legal counsel in the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel.

There is nothing more than a Conservative game here. We have the leader of the Conservative Party virtually holding the House of Commons at ransom. That is no surprise. This is the same leader who refuses to get a security clearance.

When is the Conservative Party going to do the right thing, direct its leader to behave in a more responsible fashion and, to start off, get a security clearance and stop the games?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the member opposite has a security clearance, but let us talk about how we got here. All of the opposition parties voted to order the production of these documents. Parliament is sovereign. A majority of members of Parliament voted to order these documents. The member, representing a minority of the House, does not like the decision the House has made, and that is fair enough; I do not always like decisions the House makes either. However, the House has ordered the production of these documents, and the government should recognize the supremacy of Parliament in our system of government.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe North. It is nice to see you in the chair. Usually, that is not the case when I am speaking.

Before I get into the heart of the matter, I would like to acknowledge a local benefactor in Simcoe North, who, over the summer, announced that he was donating $22.5 million to local charities in the region, in Simcoe County but primarily in Simcoe North. This is on top of $28 million that this individual has donated over the previous 27 years. This is likely the largest single benefactor in our area, a wonderful immigrant entrepreneur who came to the country with very little, built a business and has given back to the community. He could have stopped at any of the small towns along the 401 before he turned north to the Midland and Penetanguishene area, and we are very glad and lucky that he chose our place as home. On behalf of all the charities and recipients, I would like to thank Mr. Reinhart Weber for his generosity and amazing business success, which he has allowed to benefit the community.

We are back at it. I am wearing a green tie today not because I used to work for the former finance minister Jim Flaherty, but because it is the colour of money and the colour of the green slush fund. Somehow, we are still in this twilight zone. It feels a bit like the movie Groundhog Day.

In a letter the law clerk wrote with respect to Parliament's ability to receive the documents in question, he noted that the order is an exercise of the House of Commons' power to send for documents and that this parliamentary privilege is rooted in the preamble of the Constitution and section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act. Nowhere in the motion does the House pretend to direct the RCMP. It merely says that these documents need to be made available to the RCMP. If the RCMP decides not to look at them, that is fine. If the RCMP, on recommendations from the justice department, says that some of these documents are inadmissible, that would be up to the RCMP to decide.

Let us remember that this is not the first time the RCMP has not been able to get documents. Need I remind my hon. colleagues of SNC-Lavalin, the WE scandal and foreign interference? By the way, with respect to foreign interference, for the entire time this debate has occurred in the House, individuals within the government, who have had all the information all the way along, have said, “There is nothing to see here so please move along.” That is biggest understatement we have seen coming out of the government with respect to foreign interference. Lo and behold, there was explosive testimony at the public inquiry that the government did not want to have. Need I remind the House about the Winnipeg lab documents?

This is a very serious matter. There are Criminal Code provisions related to breach of trust that ought to be explored by the RCMP. It is up to the RCMP to do so, but we want to make sure that it has the information to conduct an investigation if it chooses to do so. However, this raises a bigger question about the role of the House and the fact that the government, members of the government in particular, seems to consider this chamber, Parliament and committees mere inconveniences.

Let us go back to 2020, in the early days of the pandemic. What did the government try to do? The government tried to introduce legislation to give itself unlimited taxing and spending powers without having Parliament sit for oversight. We have ministers who routinely ignore invitations to come to committee. The Liberals frustrated the WE scandal. In fact, they prorogued Parliament to avoid that scandal. They took the Speaker's office to court. This was all in the name of protecting charter rights, and it is apparently why the Liberals are not giving the documents here. Well, what about the charter rights of the people who had their bank accounts frozen for what appeared to be charges of public mischief? However, here, the government wants to protect the privacy rights of people who may have defrauded the Canadian taxpayer and the Canadian public of significant money.

Now let us go back to why. The Auditor General has said there is $400 million from this fund that has gone to ineligible recipients, including well over 100 specific instances of conflicts of interest. That alone should cause this entire place to stop until we figure out more and until we ensure that Canadian taxpayers will be taken care of.

I just saw last week one of the individuals who is at the heart of this scandal appear at industry committee. This individual said that she was under scrutiny because she was a woman and from Quebec. At no point during the testimony did I hear the words, “I am sorry; I made a mistake; I should have been more clear or more precise about recusing myself on the grounds of conflict of interest.” That is the definition of gaslighting, to try to shield oneself from scrutiny when they have been caught dead to rights by the Auditor General for misappropriating funds to companies in which that individual and other individuals on the board have a direct pecuniary financial interest.

Now, I am here as an individual, and I would like to think we can be collaborative, so I have an idea. I will work hard to convince my colleagues that maybe there is another way. Maybe there is another path to get back to the people's work. Of course, the government could produce the documents, but maybe there is another way. If the government recovers the $400 million, I will work hard to convince my colleagues that maybe we should move past this and get back to the people's work, but I do not think the government has shown any interest in recovering these funds.

The government was dragged kicking and screaming to do an internal investigation. When it had documents that specifically showed direct conflicts of interest, it waited until the Auditor General's report was done to ask some of these individuals to leave their posts. In fact, when it was known that there were problems with conflicts of interest with this particular fund, one of these board members was given a promotion. This person was promoted to the Canada Infrastructure Bank board.

I wonder if that individual had any personal connection to companies involved in the infrastructure space while they were there. It is a very relevant question to ask, but the fact is that this person sat on that board for multiple months. My understanding is that even a year after allegations surfaced of wrongful conduct, the government left this individual in that position.

The government and other members in this House like to bring up scandals of the past. The one they like to bring up involved Mike Duffy, and for the life of me, I do not understand why. It was the only scandal in Canadian history where the taxpayer was repaid. Really, $90,000 was repaid to the taxpayer for wrongful conduct of a senator. He was in the wrong, but the taxpayer was made whole.

As such, how come this government is not out trying to recover $400 million from people who should not have gotten it? If these documents were provided to this chamber, to the law clerk and to members of Parliament, there would be nothing to stop any member of Parliament from publishing these documents on their website or making them available to journalists. Of course, the RCMP would be able to look at those anyway. The fact that the documents would be sent to the RCMP is completely redundant. They will become public documents in most circumstances. It seems rather bizarre that this government is very happy not having much happen in this place, because it could easily just turn over the documents or maybe it should show some effort to recover the $400 million. As I said before, there is nothing in this motion that directs the RCMP.

I find it fascinating that members of the government, including the parliamentary secretary who is probably still smarting from the last time we had an exchange in this place, are worried about directing the RCMP. They improperly directed their attorney general on SNC-Lavalin and they improperly directed the RCMP with respect to releasing documents during an open and active investigation in the absolutely tragic Nova Scotia shooting, which was still very raw for the country, but more importantly for the victims of those crimes, all to politically benefit the government's new firearms regulations and agenda. They improperly pressured the commissioner of the RCMP to release details against protocols, because it would help the government's agenda.

I think that if this government was really worried about directing the RCMP, it would read the motion, for one, and recognize that the words “direct” or “encourage” or anything close to that are not there. As I said before, if these documents are produced, the RCMP will be able to get them on multiple avenues. The fact that they might be inadmissible to court has nothing to do with the motion.

The Liberals think that they are protecting the charter rights of people who may have committed crimes.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I love the comments from my hon. colleagues. Law & Order is a fantastic show; even the new one that is filmed in Toronto. Maybe they should actually watch some of it to figure out how these investigations happen.

However, if the RCMP had access to documents that might be inadmissible, it could at least put together a timeline of events and it could put together what has occurred. The fact that the Liberals are not interested in learning about the wrongdoings of board members that they appointed tells us all we need to know, which is that when this government started appointing board members to this organization, its lobbyists and friends, its eyes turned as green as the colour of my tie.

The SDTC organization had been going on for years without any problems. If we go back to the previous government, Jim Balsillie was the chair of that board and never put in an expense report. There was never an Auditor General concern about that organization or the way it disbursed funds. It was only when this government decided to appoint its friends, knowing they would be in conflict of interest. Thank God for the whistle-blower who let everybody know, before these appointments were made, that certain individuals would find it very hard to do their duty because they would be in so many conflicts of interest.

What was the response back to that initial concern? It was, “Do not worry about it, we have it taken care of.” Well, “have it taken care” of is right, with $400 million all the way to the bank.

If Canadians are upset that Parliament is not working, they only need to look at one party. This motion, this request, is within the full rights of Parliament to make.

This makes it right because Parliament has asked for it. In the past there have been multiple times when Parliament has asked for documents in previous administrations. Do colleagues know what other governments have done? They have found another way to get past the impasse. During a very difficult and controversial issue with respect to treatment of detainees in a previous government, a secret committee was struck in order to allow members of Parliament to see sensitive documents related to national security. I do not see any creativity on that side of the House trying to find a path forward.

If the government was interested in getting back to work, it would try to find a way to get back to work. As I mentioned before, I would be willing to work with that side of the House, to find a path to get this place back to work. That could include turning over the documents, but of course we see that the government is not that interested in doing that. Maybe if the government recovered the $400 million, we could move along and let this go to a committee where there would be full scrutiny, but only if taxpayers are repaid. To me, that would sound like a very reasonable compromise. I would commit to working with my colleagues in order to make that happen. If the government is unwilling or unable to even get a significant portion of those $400 million in funds returned, I think we might as well stay here for a very long time.

I noted the question from my friend from the Bloc to the previous speaker about how long might this go on. I think we should try to find a compromise, but it has to include either the release of the documents or a full accounting and repayment of the $400 million back to the taxpayer. The $400 million is not a number that opposition party members have said was misappropriated or went to ineligible recipients. That number came from the Auditor General. We could have no more credible source when looking at government spending than the Auditor General.

By the way, this would not be the first time that the government has not accepted the findings of the Auditor General. In a very rare case, the Auditor General produced a report on the CERB and wage subsidy audits that the government did not even accept. It was one of the first times in at least a decade where the findings of the Auditor General were not accepted. However, here I have not heard that the government has not accepted these findings. It seems bizarre that it is not also trying to recover the $400 million for taxpayers.

I think we have established that Parliament has a right to these documents; taxpayers have a right to be repaid; there needs to be transparency; and the RCMP, to the extent that it wishes to look at the documents, should be able to look at them. As for the fact that the clerk might make them available to the RCMP or send them along, I do not think that should be of concern to anybody here, because once the documents are tabled, they are basically public anyway.

Unless the government wants to come up with another way, I think we are going to be here for a little while. I am fully confident that when we talk about the severity and the size of the grift in this circumstance of $400 million, it should bring this place to a halt. It should make a government think twice about how it is going to proceed. The fact that multiple opposition parties support this motion should let everybody know that $400 million, this entire circumstance, is that important that this place is coming to a halt until we get the documents. Release the papers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that the member encouraged this side of the House to watch Law & Order to understand the law. I found it very alarming to hear this from somebody who has a degree in law. I would warn the member that perhaps relying on fictitious characters on a TV show might not be the best way to come by understanding how the law works, but I digress.

I will preface my question for the member by saying that the RCMP does not want to obtain the information this way. The commissioner of the RCMP specifically said that, “There is a significant risk that the Motion could be interpreted as circumvention of normal investigative process and Charter protections.” With all of the member's experience and time when he studied law, how many times did he come across evidence that had been obtained by a motion of Parliament?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. Maybe there are a few lawyers on that side who need to educate Liberal members on what a conflict of interest is, because it seems there is only one party in the House that, time and time again, does not understand what a conflict of interest is.

Frankly, with respect to the RCMP, it does not have to look at the documents or use them in court if it does not want to. What Conservatives are saying is we want to make them available to the RCMP. If the RCMP does not want to produce them as evidence in a trial, that is up to the RCMP. That is what this is about. We are asking for documents, which we have a constitutional and legal obligation to do on behalf of taxpayers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to give my colleague credit. His speech actually stayed on the motion today, unlike many of his colleagues who use this as a platform to clip and raise money.

The Conservatives under the Harper government were embroiled in scandal after scandal: the ETS scandal of $400 million; $1 billion in the G8 scandal, including the gazebos we all know about; $2.2 billion for the Phoenix pay system, which the Liberal government inherited and still has not fixed. There has been scandal after scandal.

Does my colleague not have any shame for the Harper government and the scandals under the Conservatives' watch? I would like to hear why they did not address those in any of their speeches.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we should be concerned about is if a law has been broken. I do not care which party a person is from or when it happens, so long as it is within the statutory limitation period. That person should face the consequences of the law that was broken.

In this circumstance, when board members are purposely and knowingly benefiting companies they have a pecuniary and financial interest in, that should be investigated to the fullest extent of the law, and if any of them had a breach of trust, they should be prosecuted. Everyone should just accept the fact that it does not matter which party anyone is from or where they live in the country; if they break the law, they should face the consequences.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member might comment on some of the arguments that have been brought forward from the other bench.

Already this morning, the Liberals are talking about whether the House of Commons should order the production of documents. That ship sailed. The House of Commons did vote for the production of documents and the government has failed to comply with an order of Parliament, a possible contempt of Parliament.

If Liberals wanted to make the argument, which they have made over and over again, the time to do so was last spring. Today we are talking about fulfilling the order for the production of documents.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is the best question I have received thus far on my speech. The government tried to make that argument at the time but my friend from Calgary Rocky Ridge is correct that Parliament has requested these documents, which is the full right of the House. The fact that the government is not providing them speaks volumes.

One wonders what the Liberals are hiding. That is a common refrain we are hearing from them these days. What is it they are hiding in these documents? Is it explosive evidence that directly links their friends to the grift? We need to know and Canadians deserve to know.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague continues to mention $400 million that is missing. Is it not correct that the Auditor General chose a selection of 58 files that the SDTC had granted money to and, potentially, the number is much bigger?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is always very astute. She reads the fine details, and yes, she is correct that the $400 million was on a sampling of transactions. Once we find $400 million has gone to ineligible recipients from the sampling, should we not look at the full amount? Maybe the government would be interested in looking at the full amount, but it has not suggested it is interested in finding any truth for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not get an answer to my question, so I am going to ask it very clearly without any preamble. Can the member please inform the House as to how many times, during the time he spent at Western University studying law, he came across evidence in a case that was furnished to the authorities or to an attorney through a motion of Parliament?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have never seen a case where $400 million of taxpayer money went to ineligible recipients with direct conflicts of interest to members who sit on the board, who, by the way, are friends of the government and former employers of the Minister of Environment. I have never seen so much grift in my entire experience as a member of Parliament, which is only a few years. This $400 million is not $20 or nine dollars' worth of orange juice or $90,000 of expenses that was paid and was actually reimbursed to the taxpayer. It is $400 million and these individuals are not interested in finding out the answers.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for a very inspirational speech. In his comments—