House of Commons Hansard #365 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was energy.

Topics

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Mr. Speaker, “cornucopia” is another good one.

I asked where the accountability is. Indeed, the witnesses should be compelled to come before the committee to provide Canadians with the documents and the answers they seek. Since my first intervention, I have not gotten a satisfactory response to the question I asked: Where is the accountability? I will therefore continue along in the similar line of questioning.

In the case of the green slush fund, $400 million was paid out to Liberal insiders. The bigger mind-boggling number to me is that it was through 186 cases of conflicts of interest, a number that came from a sampling by the Auditor General. I wonder how many Canadian families could be fed with $400 million. It is hard to wrap one's head around a number so big, and around so much corruption.

According to another member's intervention in this place, $400 million is equivalent to the annual tax filings of 22,000 Canadian families, all to go to fund Liberal insider corruption. According to a recent RBC study, the average Canadian family of four now spends $1,227 a month on food, just under $15,000 a year. The math would suggest that $400 million would feed over 27,000 families per year, which is about 108,843 Canadians. Please do not misunderstand me. The role of government is to create the fiscal and societal climate where powerful paycheques allow Canadians to feed themselves; it should not have to be the role of government to directly feed Canadians.

Members get my point. I am trying to make the big numbers, which are so hard for many of us to wrap our heads around, relatable in order to indicate exactly the size of the issue we are dealing with and the amount of the gross misuse of taxpayer money. It is simply not acceptable. Where is the accountability?

In speaking for 20 minutes two weeks ago, I did not have enough time to go through the full list of scandals, corruptions and conflicts of interest. I will continue in that vein today.

I did comment last time on the Prime Minister's removal of the only indigenous woman ever to serve as a justice minister and Attorney General for Canada, Jody Wilson-Raybould. She was removed because she would not be pressured by him to thwart the rule of law in Canada to help the PM's friends at SNC-Lavalin. The former minister lost her job because she stood up for what her oath of office required her to do. She was accountable, which is the principle that everyone is subject to the law, regardless of their relationship with the Prime Minister of Canada.

I also spoke about one of several Bill Morneau scandals, including Bill C-27. When the bill was tabled in the House of Commons, the value of Morneau Shepell shares increased dramatically. Coincidentally, Minister Morneau held 21 million dollars' worth of shares.

I also mentioned the David Lametti scandal, yet another case of Liberal disregard for the rule of law in Canada. The former attorney general cancelled the verdict of first-degree murder against Jacques Delisle, a former judge, even though all the legal experts were against this decision.

Who can forget the then minister of public works, whose husband sat on LifeLabs board as a director while the company was awarded COVID testing contracts totalling $68.2 million? What is the value of that in today's groceries? It could feed 18,470 plus people. Again I ask, where is the accountability?

I mentioned Scott Brison's attempt to benefit from his and his husband's ties to Irving Shipbuilding by trying to block a shipyard contract in favour of Irving away from Davie. In the process, the Liberals and Mr. Brison tried to frame multi-decorated Vice-Admiral Mark Norman and charge him with breach of trust. He was exonerated of all those charges, but not before his military career was destroyed. The whole sordid affair was unconscionable. Where is the accountability?

Former minister Navdeep Bains was also mentioned in my previous speech with his telecom windfall. As the former minister of innovation, science and industry, he pledged to deliver government support and that they would demand the big three telecoms, which are Bell, Rogers and Telus, to lower their prices by 25%. Now, Mr. Bains sits as the chief corporate affairs officer at Rogers and is receiving a six-figure salary. Again, there is no accountability, and for Canadians, there are higher cell phone bills. In many cases, Canadians' mobile data plans cost 200 times more than the cheapest ones in other countries, according to a recent Toronto Star report. I do not know about other members' cell phone bills, but mine has not gone down.

Of course, no scandal chronicle would be complete without mention of the WE Charity scandal and the Trudeau family bonanza paydays totalling $482,000. Doing the math, that amount would buy 128 Canadians groceries for a year. I guess that is okay because I am sure Margaret, Sacha and Sophie needed the money for groceries.

I would have been negligent in my previous intervention if I had not touched upon the notorious arrive scam and GC Strategies incident. That was the Liberal-friendly company that charged $60 million for an app that could have cost $80,000. Again, there is not much accountability. If my calculator is correct, that would be the equivalent of groceries for 16,300 Canadians for an entire year.

What about the Prime Minister's Christmas vacation on the Aga Khan's island and the subsequent $50 million of federal funding that flowed to that foundation, which is what it has received since 2016?

The Prime Minister also invited a convicted terrorist, Jaspal Atwal to dinner when he was in India with his family, and he ensured the feast was prepared by his own celebrity chef, who was flown in from Vancouver. He embarrassingly played Mr. Dressup with an insensitive overuse of Indian clothing. That scandal cost Canadians another $1.66 million, or the equivalent of the annual food bill for 451 Canadians. There was no accountability for that fiasco. Once again, Canadians were left embarrassed and angry, or perhaps hangry.

The Ethics Commissioner found that the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development also broke ethics rules when she doled out just under $17,000 in a contract to a friend. That is about one family's worth of annual groceries. I am sure we all know of families that could use that money.

Now on to the scandals that I did not get to last time. I did not have time to describe the Julie Payette fiasco. The Prime Minister ignored the independent process put in place by the previous government to vet potential Governors General, as he thought he was smarter and could do it better himself. He picked his own. We know how that turned out, which was a disgrace to both the Governor General's staff and to the institution.

What about the Minister of National Defence's interference in the Nova Scotia shooting tragedy? He pressured RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki to publicly release information about the specific firearms used in the shooting in order to advance the federal government's misguided gun control legislation.

These are ones I did not get to last time. I am just getting to them now. That is not to mention, following the resignation of the then ethics commissioner Mario Dion, due to overwork, I believe, the Liberal government decided to appoint Martine Richard, the sister-in-law of the current public safety minister, to replace him. Does this sound like nepotism to anyone? Again, where is the accountability?

Under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, the sponsorship scandal may have been the spark that ignited the grand-scale Liberal penchant for lining their own pockets and those of their friends. Unfortunately, it was not the last. The Liberals and their buddies have discovered that their corruption is inflation-proof when it comes to padding their own personal fortunes. Therefore, here we are today.

After the documents for the SDTC scandal, the green slush fund, are finally handed over, Conservatives will raise concerns over the member from Edmonton Centre's company receiving over $120 million in government grants and contracts, including when he was minister. Although the minister has denied any wrongdoing, he went so far as to say text messages referring to a “Randy” uncovered during the committee hearing last summer, was not him, but, indeed, “another Randy”. The evidence tells a different story.

New text messages indicate that the member in question was in cabinet at the time and, at one point, the texts between the business partner and his client referred to a “Randy” being in Vancouver on September 6, 2022. We know that the member for Edmonton Centre was attending the Liberal government's cabinet retreat in the same city. Furthermore, Global News reported that the minister's former business partner was texting a “Randy” about deals involving a half-million dollar payment. Subsequently, that same business partner admitted that he had lied to Global News about the identity of the “other Randy”, confirming that it was, indeed, the member for Edmonton Centre who he was referring to in those now infamous text messages. However, the minister had the audacity to testify that the “Randy” referenced in those texts is not him, but another Randy, who just happened to work at the company he had a 50% ownership stake in.

At the committee hearing, his business partner did come clean and testified that, indeed, there is only one Randy who ever worked at the company, and it was the minister himself. I guess he thought better than to stand by his original statement when he learned that section 132 of the Criminal Code of Canada states, “Every one who commits perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.” Where is the accountability for the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages? Where is the ministerial accountability? Where is ministerial integrity?

Who can forget the Frank Baylis scandal? Frank Baylis left politics after only one term as an MP and was part of a consortium of companies that received $237 million to provide 10,000 ventilators in the spring of 2020. It sounds eerily similar to the situation of Navdeep Bains. When will Canadians find accountability restored again in their government? I can tell members: It will be when they elect a common-sense Conservative government. That is when.

Now questions are arising about whether taxpayers are going to be funding one of the companies that Mark Carney works for days after he was announced as an adviser to the Prime Minister. As a former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, on paper, he seems to be the perfect fit as a financial adviser to the PM. Unfortunately, it appears that he is cut from the same cloth when it comes to financial ethics, or lack thereof. What should come as no surprise, a potential conflict of interest has come in for Mr. Carney and his company, Brookfield, which could involve billions of taxpayer dollars.

I am moving on from millions of dollars now to talk about billions of taxpayer dollars. The Globe and Mail reported that the proposal floating around Bay Street and the halls of Parliament would see Brookfield Asset Management create a $50-billion investment vehicle, with $10 billion of that to be paid for by Canadian taxpayers, and members guessed it, Mark Carney is the chair of the board for Brookfield. He holds the title head of transition investing at Brookfield.

How much is $10 billion? How do we wrap our heads around understanding how much $10 billion is? It is the equivalent of 689,163 Canadian families' groceries for a year. Even that is a number too big, and I cannot fully fathom how it would impact Canadians if this were to come about. It is simply unacceptable that carbon tax Carney has been given the power by the Prime Minister to offer him advice on a company in which he holds $1 million in stock options. Why is there no conflict of interest screen being applied?

If the Prime Minister were to grant Brookfield's request, does that not beg the question of how much money Mark Carney would stand to personally profit. The Financial Post reported that Brookfield immediately began lobbying the government for this money after the Deputy Prime Minister created a task force in last spring's budget to redirect Canadian pension fund investments. This was of course led by the former governor of the Bank of Canada, Stephen Poloz.

What we do not know is if Mark Carney personally put efforts into pushing this through, as he refused to register as a lobbyist. The Prime Minister protected carbon tax Carney by appointing him to a position in which he does not have to declare his conflicts of interest. Every day, more and new questions emerge.

As mentioned last September, Carney's close friend, who serves as the CEO of Telesat, Daniel Goldberg, received $2.1 billion in taxpayer loans to build a broadband network that other firms could have delivered at a fraction of the cost to taxpayers. Despite Carney's glaring conflict of interest, both the NDP and the Liberals decided to protect him from answering questions at the House of Commons committee.

I ask my colleagues down the way why it is that NDP members have sold their souls to their Liberal partners and then ripped up the deal, and now they are saying they will sell them on a case-by-case basis. have they been caught protecting their own again? I do not know. Why can we not have transparency? The injustice never ends. The only way it would end would be after the next election, when Canadians would be able to take back their paycheques from the corrupt government.

To summarize, I have spoken to about 17 scandals that show the Prime Minister of Canada views the government and the government's treasury as his own personal slush fund, and that of his cabinet and their close friends, all to be used to improve their personal fortunes.

The lack of accountability starts with the Prime Minister, and this disease and corruption seems to pervade this cabinet. The member for Edmonton Centre followed the lead of the Prime Minister and his colleagues by stepping up to gorge himself at the illicit Liberal banquet table. Will the real Randy please step up and take responsibility?

We need change and accountability, and we need the kind of leadership that shows Canadian people that the government serves them and not the other way around. We need the kind of leadership offered by the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition and a country where its citizens can both heat and eat. That government will only be found in one place, and that is with common-sense Conservatives, who presently sit on this side of the House. We will turn the Liberal hurt into the hope that Canadians need by bringing home a country where hard work pays off members's homes, my home and our homes. Let us bring it home.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am wondering if you could check to see if we have quorum.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

Let us start counting.

And the count having been taken:

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, to accommodate a quorum, do we have to have more than one Conservative member in the chamber?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

That was not a point of order.

We are good.

On a point of order, we have the hon. House leader for the NDP.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Mr. Speaker, why are the Conservatives hanging out and hiding behind the curtains?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

We will go to the hon. member for Saint John—Rothesay for his question to the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Mr. Speaker, honestly, I think I am watching Groundhog Day or Inception. This goes round and round again.

My question straight up to the member opposite is this: Will you have the courage to encourage your leader to do the right thing and get his clearance? I know the leader has painted himself into a corner and has to get his feet wet getting out, but he needs to listen to Canadians. He needs to put Canadians' interests ahead of his own.

Will the member opposite encourage his leader, the leader of the Conservative Party, to do the right thing, get his clearance and put this issue to bed once and for all?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

I will just remind my friend from Saint John—Rothesay, which is right next door to West Nova, to run questions through the Chair and not directly to members.

The hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I just checked through my notes and do not recall speaking about foreign interference. I thought I was talking about generalized corruption. However, I do not mind addressing the question.

Will I take on some responsibility here? Absolutely. I am going to work very hard so the Leader of Opposition becomes the Prime Minister of Canada. Then he will receive these briefings without any clearance at all.

Anyone who thinks the Leader of Opposition has anything to hide should listen to his words: Release the names. That is what we are asking for. There is nothing to hide here.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have a proud record of hiding facts. The NDP, of course, supports the motion. We wanted to get to the bottom of the SNC-Lavalin scandal and the WE Charity scandal, just as we want to get to the bottom of this scandal, but the Conservatives did not share that. In fact, during the Harper regime, the Harper government and Harper Conservatives systematically blocked every single parliamentary inquiry into misspending. There were massive amounts, with $400 million in the ETS scandal and over $1 billion for the G8 scandal. My colleague from Courtenay—Alberni mentioned the $2.2 billion in the Phoenix pay scandal. There was also the anti-terrorism funding, which had no paper trail, at over $3 billion. The Conservatives succeeded, with a majority government, in shutting down any parliamentary inquiry into any of these massive misspending and corruption scandals.

Will the Conservatives now admit that they were wrong to do that? Will they apologize to Canadians for their massive misspending under the Harper regime?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was not here then. I am part of the proud 2019 cohort.

I will head off a question from across the way. I do not need any help in the other legislation being debated that has come up in earlier interventions. I look forward to having an election now.

To the question that was asked, let us put accountability back to the Canadian people. Anyone who has breached ethics, shown corruption or had a conflict of interest should be held accountable, period, end of story. I do not care where they come from in the House.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated what my colleague had to say today. He expressed concerns about a number of different scenarios where the government has behaved as it is now with the green slush fund. I wonder if he has anything to say to young Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet while going to school or trying to buy a home. With all of the challenges they are facing, they are very concerned about our environment. The Minister of Environment is implicated in all of this, the king of the whole environmental scenario, yet he has seen Canadian tax dollars, which could be used to help young Canadians, being abused when they should have gone to the green opportunities that young people want to see them spent on.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Mr. Speaker, that is why I tried to relate some of the terms in my intervention to what so many Canadians are struggling with, be they young or otherwise. What is the equivalent value in the form of groceries of the money being corrupted away? Absolutely, responsibility, especially responsibility to fiscal management of taxpayer resources, needs to come back to the House.

Often in round tables at home, I say to folks I meet with who tell me of their struggles and ask for government help, governments of any stripe, be they municipal, provincial or federal, that no government has money. Governments only have the power to get money, municipally or provincially, by taxation or borrowing. The federal government can also do so by printing, which the government did, and now we are living with the consequences of that.

What young Canadians and what my own children and their families are looking for is responsibility in stewarding their tax resources. I believe it was the member for Kelowna—Lake Country who said the $400 million from this corruption, to take it back to the subject before us, is equivalent to 22,000 Canadian families' tax filings. Canadians, young ones especially, are looking for accountability, responsibility and proper stewardship regarding those funds.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:40 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the NDP brought up Stephen Harper corruption. I have a booklet called “Stephen Harper, Serial Abuser of Power” on scandals and corruption. The current Conservative leader is actually mentioned in it and was, in fact, a point man on many of those issues.

Let us get back to today. What we are witnessing today is a multi-million dollar game being played by the leader of the Conservative Party. Much like when his prime minister was held in contempt of court, the leader of the official opposition is on a power trip, abusing legislative and common powers, even when he is in the opposition benches. All one needs to do is understand the game the Conservatives are playing, at great expense. Nothing has changed with the leader.

A question has been posed to the Conservatives that they do not answer directly. The Conservative leader is playing a game by putting the Conservative Party and his personal interests ahead of Canadians and not getting a security clearance. What is he hiding? What in his background is preventing him from doing the honourable thing, putting Canadians ahead of the Conservatives and getting a security clearance? Why not?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member referenced that a game is being played. Let us end the game. There are two ways to do so. Power resides on that side of the House. If the Liberals hand over the documents, the game will be ended. If they do not want to do that and are afraid of foreign interference, let us go back to Canadians. Let us have an election.

We are prepared to end the game and continue the work of Canadians in this place. We are prepared to go to the people and ask for their confidence to run the affairs of this country, spend money responsibly and protect our country from foreign interference.

Let us end the game. I am all for it.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC

Mr. Speaker, on the weekend, I talked to an individual who told me that all his life he has voted for the NDP but that has changed. He is so frustrated with the NDP's support of the Liberals in government, all the scandals and mismanagement, and the impact that is having on his life.

I am wondering if the member could address the NDP supporting the Liberals, even with the green slush fund, and not bringing down the government.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the party in fourth place in this Parliament. It wants to represent Canadians and says it is working for Canadians, yet it has missed so much time in this chamber. It has missed 24 shifts while we are doing this.

I cannot understand why the New Democrats are propping up the government. They say they are not going to prop it up, but they prop it up and do not come to this chamber to bring the government down. I do not have an answer. I really do not.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Mr. Speaker, this debate has been going on for some time. We have gone through the original motion and an amendment and now we are dealing with a subamendment to the motion. It all refers back to a previous motion, which was adopted on June 10 in the House of Commons, so I thought it might be helpful to go back and review the wording of those motions to make sure that we all know what is being discussed.

Back in June, here was the question before the House:

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 14 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; and

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

provided that,

(g) 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

(h) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall provide forthwith any documents received by him, pursuant to this order, to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for its independent determination of whether to investigate potential offences under the Criminal Code or any other act of Parliament.

This was voted on in a somewhat amended format. I will read the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. The motion was amended slightly by changing “14 days” to “30 days”, to give the government more time to comply, and through the following:

(b) by adding the word “and” at the end of paragraph (f), and by adding, after paragraph (f), the following new paragraph: “(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;”....

Then there was a further adjustment to paragraph (h), which was to delete all the words after the word “Police”.

That was voted on, and in the division on June 10, 171 of us voted yea and 150 voted nay. All of the nays, of course, were from members of the Liberal caucus. The other parties supported it.

This produced a series of reports from various government departments and agencies, which were tabled in the House of Commons as required. The Clerk then submitted the material to the Speaker, who reported back to the House, and it was at that point, over the course of the summer, that we learned numerous departments either had completely failed to comply by submitting literally nothing or, in other cases, had submitted heavily redacted documents.

That failure of compliance was the basis for another motion, which was introduced in the House upon our return. This was in the name of the opposition House leader. The motion is, “That the government's failure of fully providing documents, as ordered by the House on June 10, 2024, be hereby referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs”.

Initially, there was a question of privilege about this. That led to the Speaker's ruling that this was a prima facie case of privilege and also an injunction to us to refer it to the procedure and House affairs committee.

Based on that, this motion was put forward. It was subsequently amended to read as follows:

provided that it be an instruction to the committee:

(a) that the following witnesses be ordered to appear before the committee, separately, for two hours each:

(i) the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry,

(ii) the Clerk of the Privy Council,

(iii) the Auditor General of Canada,

(iv) the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,

(v) the Deputy Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada,

(vi) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons,

(vii) the Acting President of Sustainable Development Technology Canada,

(viii) a panel consisting of the Board of Sustainable Development Technology Canada; and

(b) that it report back to the House no later than Friday, November 22, 2024.

I made remarks addressing this amendment about two weeks ago.

Subsequent to that time, a subamendment was moved in the name of the member for Flamborough—Glanbrook to change one of the subparagraphs regarding the list of witnesses who are to appear before the committee for two hours each. The amendment would add “the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who respected the order of the House and deposited unredacted documents,” and “Paul MacKinnon, former Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, [responsible for] (Governance),”.

What we are debating now is the subamendment dealing with these two gentlemen. The thing that is striking about this is that the Privacy Commissioner, unlike so many other individuals who were expected to produce these documents, respected the order of the House and deposited unredacted documents.

When I listen to what is being said on the far side of the House by the government members, they act as if it is a horrendous breach of privacy, of civil rights, of civil liberties, of charter rights, of the ways in which we conduct business respectfully and of individual rights here in Canada, to ask for such documents. They say darkly that we will be possibly damaging the ability to engage in criminal prosecution in the future, if these documents are presented in this manner, but the Privacy Commissioner did not think so.

I am going to guess that the Privacy Commissioner did not think so, in part because of the other individuals whose names are on that list. More to the point, the Privacy Commissioner probably anticipated that we would be hearing back from some of these other people. The Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel for the House of Commons is on that list of individuals who would testify before the procedure and House affairs committee. That individual would be able to shed light on the kinds of documents, without getting into the specifics, that have been presented and the kind of information that they reveal and could point out where it looks like the redactions have had the effect of removing evidence that really could not be characterized in any conceivable way as triggering the rights of which the Liberals have such a punctilious concern.

The commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would, likewise, be able to shed some light on that. Both the testimony of the individual in receipt of the documents, who is not going to be called forward as a prosecution witness and therefore can look at them objectively, without any danger with regard to future court proceedings, and the testimony of the commissioner of the RCMP, who can indicate exactly what kinds of concerns they need to have, are very significant safeguards. In all fairness, their names were not added to the list back when the Privacy Commissioner submitted full, unredacted documents, but presumably the Privacy Commissioner was able to anticipate, as an intelligent individual in his position would do, that this would be the case. That should be no surprise. This comes from from the biography of the Privacy Commissioner, Philippe Dufresne, on the Privacy Commissioner's website:

He previously served as the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons. In this capacity, he was the chief legal officer of the House of Commons and led the office responsible for the provision of legal and legislative drafting services to the House of Commons, its Speaker, Members and committees, the Board of Internal Economy and the House Administration.

Additionally, before that, “he was the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s Senior General Counsel”. If there are concerns about abstract human rights or procedural rights, which are some of the most important human rights, here is a guy who knows this stuff cold.

He successfully represented the Commission before all levels of Canadian Courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, in a number of key human rights and constitutional cases over the last two decades. He has appeared before the Supreme Court on 15 occasions, on issues ranging from accessibility and equal pay for work of equal value, to the balancing of human rights and national security.

The Privacy Commissioner has far more expertise in this subject than any of the Liberal MPs I have seen addressing this question, and he felt safe releasing unredacted documents, understanding that these safeguards would be in place. That is quite striking; it is quite different from most of the other government agents who responded.

In all fairness, he is independent of government, unlike those departments that failed to submit, all of which report to ministers from the same government whose MPs now say that we ought to accept that these redactions are in the public interest; although, it seems more likely that they are in the interests of those individuals who have something to hide in this matter, and who may well have broken the law.

I assume the Privacy Commissioner understands his mandate. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has a mandate to provide “legal and policy analyses and expertise to help guide Parliament’s review of evolving legislation to ensure respect for individuals’ right to privacy”. Someone whose job is to do that said it is okay to release unredacted documents and demonstrated that through his own provision of such documents. Also, his mandate is “providing legal opinions and litigating court cases to advance the interpretation and application of federal privacy laws”.

I think these are pretty strong pieces of evidence. The evidence we have from the initial report back on June 4 from the Auditor General indicates very strongly that there is something profoundly wrong with this fund that dwarfs any previous scandal of a similar sort because the numbers involved are so enormous. The sponsorship scandal that took place when a similar kind of fund was set up to be disbursed with very little oversight involved conflicts of interest and misallocated funds on a scale that is perhaps, I think I may be overstating things, 10% of the amount involved here. It might have been less than 10%. Here, an extraordinary proportion of funds seem to have been misallocated. The Auditor General selected, randomly, a subset of all the contracts and found that there were problems in a majority of those contracts, suggesting that the majority of the funds allocated may simply have gone to the wrong purposes entirely. Does this qualify as illegal use or merely as grotesquely inappropriate use, which is not illegal, thanks to rules that are so slipshod and so loosely written that it is almost impossible to fall afoul of them? That is a good question. I do not know. It is probably a little of each.

There is clearly a very profound problem here. We have some guidance that it is reasonable to seek full disclosure of all documentation. I simply am unable to determine what, other than a deliberate attempt at misdirection, lies behind all of the high-sounding assertions regarding procedural justice that keep on being mentioned by Liberal members when they urge us to be afraid of the implications of this very reasonable set of motions, amendments and subamendments.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

1 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, this is an incredibly expensive, multi-million dollar game that the leader of the Conservative Party is playing. As of now, when the member sat down, 93 Conservatives have stood up to participate in this game and an additional 42 at the first amendment. They applaud the waste and the abuse that the leader of the Conservative Party is putting on Canadians, by putting the interests of his party and his leadership ahead of the interests of Canadians.

Let me quote Steven Chaplin, from a wonderful story in the Hill Times, and I encourage members opposite to read it: “It is time for the House of Commons to admit it was wrong, and to move on.” Further down, it says, “It is time for the House to admit its overreach before the matter inevitably finds it way to the courts which do have the ability to determine and limit the House’s powers, often beyond what the House may like.”

It is time that the Conservatives stop this multi-million dollar abuse of power, and let us start moving on so we can start dealing with the issues of Canadians.

When will this member advise his leader to do the right thing, stop the abuse, and, while he is doing that, get the security clearance?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

1 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think I have the numbers right, 93 Conservative members of Parliament. I am not sure how this is costing money. We are not paid by the word here. We are not the authors of potboilers. I can only observe that if this is how things work, if it is the case that time that is wasted in the House of Commons is the public's money being squandered, then surely the member opposite, who has taken up more time and used up more of the House's word count than anybody else in the Parliament, owes us all an apology and should let someone else speak for a change. He is up there talking all the time while that entire caucus is gagged. It is him and the member for Kingston and the Islands. Everybody else is told to shut up and sit down. It is no wonder their caucus is so upset with their leader. What abuse, what abuse of a caucus and what abuse of people who have the right under our parliamentary traditions to speak out freely this is. They cannot even open their mouths. I am told that they cannot even get up in their caucus to ask a question without submitting a request first. I can say that in our caucus, which I chair, that does not happen.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

1:05 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member. I have served with him for a number of years and always appreciate his speeches. Of course, as we know, the NDP supports the motion, and it was NDP MPs that got to the bottom of the WE Charity scandal and also got to the bottom of the SNC-Lavalin scandal. That is where New Democrats shine. We tried to do the same thing under the Harper regime and the member will remember how Conservatives shut down any parliamentary inquiry into the myriad scandals of the Harper years. The ETS scandal was $400 million. The G8 scandal was a billion dollars and that included gazebos, as we will remember. The Phoenix pay scandal was $2.2 billion. The anti-terrorism funding, where they simply lost the paper trail, was $3.1 billion. The member was here. He remembers how the Harper regime shut everything down.

Does he now appreciate that this was wrong, and does he apologize on behalf of Conservatives for their years of scandals and corruption?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

November 4th, 2024 / 1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I likewise very much enjoy my colleague's interventions. I enjoy them much more than the ones from the member for Winnipeg North, if we are being honest about things, although I do not get to enjoy them as frequently.

I want to say with regard to this that I was intimately involved in the procedure and House affairs hearings in 2011 into the purported contempt of Parliament of the then minority government headed by Stephen Harper. A series of charges were made against the government. One charge had to do with the procurement of jets. Another one had to do with an imaginary plan to set up for-profit prisons. This was the issue on which a vote of non-confidence was held. It endorsed the report of a committee that never actually finished reporting. I know this because I was sitting in that committee debating the content of an eventual report when the bells rang, ending our debate, so the vote could be held on concurrence in the report we had not actually finished writing. I think that is what the member is referring to. Ultimately, as the member for Winnipeg North likes to point out, the government was found in contempt. What he does not mention is that in the subsequent election, the Conservatives were elected with a majority and the member's party was reduced to its lowest numbers since Confederation.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

1:05 p.m.

An hon. member

Oh, oh!

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Mr. Speaker, my friend for Winnipeg North, even though he does not have the floor, finds the need to continue to speak, but I will get on to it.

One of the issues with the green slush fund, the SDTC, is that the government will not turn over the documents Parliament has demanded. In the contribution agreement between the current government and Industry Canada, with respect to funding SDTC, it states that any conflicts of interest, real or perceived, over the funding have to be reported to the minister.

There are well over 150 conflicts that we know of, as pointed out by the Auditor General. We have asked repeatedly, even of the head of SDTC, “Were any of these conflicts reported to the minister?” All we have received back have been shrugs. We actually brought the old minister, Navdeep Bains, to committee and we are looking at a privilege issue because he is refusing to answer the questions. If these documents that Parliament has demanded are turned over, will we actually get the answer as to whether Liberal ministers were informed of these conflicts of interest as they were required to be under the agreement?