Debates of Dec. 12th, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[An hon. member]

They're not smooth.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not smooth on the back of a donkey. It is not comfortable.

They are making this journey to a place called Bethlehem. Members can imagine the thoughts they were thinking: “This is not how I imagined it would be, Joseph”; “This is not exactly what I had in mind when we started courting”; and “This is not really what I had hoped for, that I would be stuck on a donkey going to a town I do not know where I have to pay more taxes. That is the last thing I want to be doing when I am about to give birth”.

We forget about this part of the story, but it is very real. They must have been feeling overwhelmed and filled with questions, wondering how they were going to get out from under the burden they were carrying, and she is getting more uncomfortable.

We can see that back then, as it is now, it was a time of taxation. It was a burdensome time. It was a time of uncertainty for this young couple. They were feeling the pressure of the moment.

Can anyone imagine what Joseph must have been experiencing? His new bride is about to have her baby and he is going to a town he had not been to in a long time. He gets there and starts looking for a place to stay. He goes to the inn thinking that they finally made it. He knocks on the innkeeper's door and the innkeeper asks how he can help. Joseph says he needs a room; the innkeeper does not know how badly he needs a room because his bride is expecting. The innkeeper says there is no room in the inn for them. There was a housing crisis in Bethlehem. There were no rooms left. They had more people than they had rooms. People were wondering where they were going to go.

To complicate matters, Mary is with child, is about to deliver and Joseph is not a doctor. They have no place to stay and Joseph is scrambling. He asks the innkeeper if there is anything he could do; somebody needs to help him because his bride is about to deliver. Can members hear it and see it? We have to picture it. All of a sudden, the innkeeper says that he does not have much, but there is a stable out back, an old barn. It is not all that luxurious, but it at least gives them some cover for the night. Joseph says that would do; it was fine. Can members see it? Mary is waddling her way back to the barn and Joseph is panicking, saying he does not know what they are going to do and it was so strange.

Then sure enough, that incredible, unbelievable night happened in the midst of incredible uncertainty and great taxation. When they were shut out of one place after another and it looked like all the odds were against them, Mary brought forth the child. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and placed him in a feed-box. This promised king and prince of peace did not come by way of a palace, was not escorted by a private jet and did not come in a Maserati. He came humbly by way of a donkey, born in a barn out back. He was witnessed by cattle and surrounded by sheep dung. It did not smell good and it was not pretty, but something incredible came out of something very ordinary.

Mary and Joseph are incredible people through the lens of history, but they did not have large pedigrees, big names or wealth. They were common folk who had exceptional favour on their life and were chosen for an exceptional purpose. A lot of Canadians who find themselves in uncertain times and under the weight of great taxation can draw hope from this timeless story. No matter how ordinary they feel, how stacked the odds may be against them and how many times they may feel overlooked by society and forgotten by governments, there is someone who still knows their name and recognizes them. That is what the story of Christmas is all about, that we are not alone. He came to us.

I love this story because the first ones to be entrusted with the great news of the newborn Saviour and the babe in a manger were not the kings and rulers of the day. Guess who they were. It was the farmers and shepherds, those tending their flocks on the hillside at night with the stars brightly shining. The angels lit up and gave the message. They said they had great news of joy, good news for all people, peace on earth and goodwill to all men. Who was that news given to? It was not given to the rulers of the day. That news was entrusted to the common folks, the forgotten ones: the sheep herders and the farmers on the hillside.

That relates to us as parliamentarians. Some of the greatest news, some of the best ideas and some of the things that will help get our country back on the right track will be found at the tables of ordinary folks, from hearing their stories, listening to their challenges and understanding where they are coming from. If we took time to listen to more shepherds, farmers, truck drivers, oil workers, bucket carriers and waitresses, I think we would gain a lot more wisdom than spending time at fancy conferences, paying big money and listening to the so-called experts tell us things that obviously have misled us in so many ways. If we get back to the people who built this country, the common folks, I think there is wisdom there that can get us out of the malaise we are in now.

I have to wrap up this little story. I am down to five minutes. Oh my land, I have to bring it to a close.

We cannot leave it with the shepherds and the angels singing on high and Mary, Joseph and the baby. There were three others who came. They were called the wise men. I love this about the story. The three wise men, the Magi, came from afar, because wise people recognize that sometimes we have to go a long way to find the truth in life. Sometimes we have to be willing to step out of our comfort zone, come down from our high places and go to the lowly places to find some of the most precious gifts that can be found, and those three wise men were wise indeed.

They were wise enough to seek out the answers to what they were facing in an uncommon place, and they followed a star and it got them to the town of Bethlehem. They came bearing gifts: gold, frankincense and myrrh.

When they showed up with the gold, the gold obviously spoke to financial resources. How can we reflect the wisdom of the wise men? Perhaps we can help the less fortunate with our resources. If we have been blessed with some goods, let us remember to give to good charities that do good things in our communities and make a difference in people's lives in a real way. Let us remember to bring our finances and our gold to the table. When we give to the least fortunate, we are actually giving it to the king, and it brings honour to him.

The second gift was frankincense. Frankincense was incense, which basically represented the prayers of the people throughout the ages. The good news about prayer is that prayer lives on. The prayers of our forefathers, our moms and our dads, and yes, the prayers of our parents and our own prayers, will live on. When we bring our prayers to God, they are a gift to him. The wise men brought that, and prayers for peace are going on right now all over the world, looking for peace. This time of year, we remember that a promise of peace is offered to us, and we can give that to others.

The last gift they brought was myrrh. What was myrrh symbolic of? Myrrh was the ointment they brought to heal wounds. It represented brokenness. The amazing thing about this king, which is different from other kings, is that the greatest gift we can honour him with is our vulnerabilities and our brokenness. I think a lot of Canadians and a lot of people throughout the world are hurting right now. Christmas can be a time of mixed things. It can be filled with a lot of joy, but for those who have recently lost loved ones, there is a lot of hurt, a lot of pain and a lot of questions.

My own family knows what that is like. I lost a brother during the Christmas season. He was 34 years old. He had three young daughters, and I watched my parents age overnight. He passed away on Boxing Day of 2007, and as a person of faith, I can tell members that Christmas is mixed for us. We have many joyful memories, and we have some painful ones, but I can tell members this: I am thankful for the greatest gift that was ever given at Christmas, because it helped my family. My prayer for everyone in this House is that it helps all of them to know that, yes, he came for everyone on every side of the House, regardless of partisanship or politics, because there are things bigger than politics in life.

That is the greatest gift that was ever given, because his name was to be called Emmanuel, which means “God is with us”. He is with us in uncertain times. He is with us in hurtful times. He is with us in painful times and in joyous times, and he promised to never leave us.

With that, to conclude, my wish for the House and for everyone in Canada who is hurting right now is that he may be their Emmanuel, their God, who is with them and with us. Merry Christmas to members and their families.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his impassioned speech this afternoon. I would like to wish him and his family a merry Christmas, and of course, I express my condolences on the passing of his brother.

I was raised in a Catholic household and went to church. I since have not attended church. I have taken a slightly different path personally, but I attended catechism, and I remember Genesis 2:15 told us that people were put on this planet to take care of Planet Earth.

I am also a big fan of Katharine Hayhoe, an evangelical Christian who wrote a book called Saving Us. It is a book about how to communicate about climate change and how to communicate the necessity of humans to act, given the impact we have had on our planet, through burning fossil fuels. It is about how to have those conversations, particularly when we come together over the holiday season. If anybody out there is looking forward to getting together with their family, but maybe is not looking forward to having discussions about politics or climate change, I would encourage them to look up Saving Us by Katharine Hayhoe. She is brilliant.

I also know that foundational to Christian ethic is that we ought to all support vulnerable people. In my view, Jesus was undoubtedly a democratic socialist. He cared about people first and foremost. I would just remind my colleague that he was on his way to Bethlehem because Mary and Joseph were tax compliant. They were going for the census because they believed in helping other people.

Statistics tell us very clearly that evangelical Protestants and Catholics are among the people who care about climate change the least. Could the member change my mind? Could he tell me that he believes in climate change, and that he believes we ought to act to lower our emissions and to fight for our planet because it is the only one that God ever created for us?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I do wish him and his family a very merry Christmas, and a happy and blessed new year.

Obviously, I believe all of us are entrusted and are called upon to be good stewards of the land and the earth. I have young children. I have one in grade 7, and a couple in college and university. I want to hand on to my children a better, cleaner and greener planet than what I found. However, I do not think the answer is found in virtue signals or in useless taxes that punish our own people and that do nothing to improve the environment.

We have had the carbon tax in this country now for over a decade and a half in some jurisdictions. I asked the environment commissioner of Canada if we had a metric that could tell us how much carbon has been reduced in Canada as a result of the implementation of the carbon tax. Do members know what he told me? He said that we have no such metric.

The landmark signature piece of legislation, the carbon tax that has punished us into poverty, has done nothing to affect the climate and has done everything to diminish the pocketbooks of Canadians. I think we need a better approach.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. I enjoy my time on the fisheries committee with the member, and I do want to first say that I am incredibly sorry for the loss of his brother.

I was looking at my surroundings as the member was speaking, thinking that I was in a gospel church. In fact, I am not. I am still in the House of Commons, so I am going to ask a question that is very important to my role as a member of Parliament.

I will bring this back to what the member was talking about. He was talking about Mary from the Bible. I was reflecting on the fact that I think what Mary would like more than a manger would be affordable housing, child care and access to health care, or GST off all home heating. These are all examples of things all of us need. The member talked about making sure that we support one another, particularly at this time of year, which I agree with.

Why are the Conservatives voting against all these essential supports that Canadians across the country need and deserve?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I always enjoy our time on the fisheries committee as well, and it is always a pleasure to work with her.

What Canadians are saying more than anything is that they are seeing a piecemeal approach with gimmicks, tax tricks, and all kinds of fun and cute stuff to pretend that we are doing something. What I hear, over and over again, from folks back home is that they want us to provide them with some relief and to somehow get them a carbon tax election so that they can get rid of that stupid carbon tax, so they can afford more things and can live their lives with less government intrusion. It would do them more favours. It would relieve more pressure, and it would let them raise their families and live their lives without the big hand of bigger government on their backs.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech.

I want to ask him a question because he did touch on carbon taxation and the effect it is having on our citizens and on our economy.

A short time ago, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development gave a quote when he reported on one of his audits. He said, “The recent decreases to projected 2030 emissions were not due to climate actions taken by governments but were instead because of revisions to the data or methods used in modelling.”

What does my colleague think about that kind of deceit being displayed by the Liberal government in order to pretend it is actually having an effect on the environment?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague for Calgary Centre is really and truly a bright mind in the House; he understands finances, financial structures and how they work, and taxation more than most. He is exactly right: So much of this is virtue signalling without any real results that are tangible for Canadians.

The carbon tax has cost every sector, because every time someone is taxed, for example when the farmer who grows our food is taxed, the trucker who transports our food is taxed and the grocer who puts the food on the shelf is taxed, that affects every Canadian who has to buy the food. It is a multiplying effect that has no genuine benefit to the environment. The whole world is starting to pivot and realize. People are not buying into the schematics anymore; they want practical, tangible results.

The best thing we can do for Planet Earth is to get more Canadian energy on the planet, because we have the best regulations and the best workers, and we produce the best products in the world. We have a good-news story to tell and we need to be telling it. The more Canadian energy we get on the market, the better the planet is going to be.

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

Madam Speaker, the member used the term “gimmicks”. Let me remind my colleague that in 2021, the Conservatives brought forward the idea of having a GST holiday, just like what has been passed in the House and implemented. They also brought forward the concept of removing the GST on home heating. What did they do, though, when the NDP brought forward a motion to do that? They voted against it.

The Conservatives bring forward ideas, but if they are not the ones putting forward the motion, they vote against it. One thing we do know is that when the Harper government was in power, the last time Conservatives governed, they gave a 7% tax cut for big corporations that cost Canadian taxpayers over $70 billion. They gave a 1% tax break to small business. We know where their priorities are.

Are the Conservatives going to make promises and then continue to break them? Is that the plan, or are they going to put forward and share something today that they actually want to support and work with other parties on? In nine years, I cannot think of a thing they have gotten done. Instead, we have been working on dental care and pharmacare. I will let my colleague present something here that maybe we can work together on.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy conversations with my colleague. We had a brief stint on the fisheries committee together. What is glaringly and absolutely obvious is that, every time, the New Democrats go back and talk about what happened under Harper; however, it is nine years later, and they and their party have been propping up a government that has produced no results on the environment and has cost Canadians exorbitantly more.

I call it a gimmick because I got a call from a small business owner just last night who was saying how frustrated he is right now because the GST break is going to be for only a month and a half, it is only on certain items while other items are exempt, and it is not applicable across the board. It is leading to more frustration, more consternation, and no relief on a broad basis for Canadians who are desperate for relief. The best way they can get that is to have a carbon tax election so they get to choose.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has lost the point. It was a Conservative idea, albeit for a month as opposed to two months, and it is a GST break at a time that I believe is an appropriate time to do it. Conservatives actually campaigned on it; it was in their Conservative election platform. The leader of the Conservative Party at the time tweeted about it, saying it was a good thing. Now we were able to vote in favour of it, yet they decided to vote against it.

I think it is legitimate to ask why the Conservatives have had a change of heart.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is truly a workhorse in the House. He is here and puts in more hours than anyone. A close second, maybe, if he is not first, would be the member for Lakeland, who is here almost as much as he is. They are workhorses.

With respect to the question, what Canadians are clear about is that they do not want, at this time of economic crisis, what little relief is being provided for six to eight weeks. It is not even going to scratch the surface of the needs of Canadians. What Canadians are crying for is a permanent, full-time axe of the carbon tax for everyone everywhere. What better way is there to get it than a carbon tax election? Let us have one.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac for bringing his words of wisdom into this place. I want to talk to our lobby desk assistant and ask that they please never make me follow the member for Tobique—Mactaquac again. I do not know how I am going to top that. Every time I go to midnight mass now I will be thinking about the speech he just gave. To all the pastors out there who do not have a sermon for midnight mass, I would suggest they just take a clip provided by the House of Commons, which they can then provide their congregation. They will be more enlightened than they were before.

As well, I want to wish a very merry Christmas to all of my constituents, back in central Alberta, of Red Deer—Lacombe. I know they are awaiting my Christmas card and the calendar that often comes with it. I promise them those things will somehow, in some way, someday, get there. In the meantime, I will continue to communicate with them the best way I can.

On to the point at hand, which is the continuation of the debate on the government's mishandling of the green slush fund for Sustainable Development Technology Canada, another institution that has now been, basically, tarnished and, as a matter of fact, disbanded. It is another victim of absolutely abysmal leadership. Never in my time here has one person, the Prime Minister, been such a collection of bad ideas, bad judgment and bad leadership. Never has Canada, I think, had such a pall cast over it and never has the citizenship been this frustrated.

I now rise a third time to address the chamber in this matter relating to the green slush fund. Why? Because the government has refused, and continues to refuse, to turn over documents relating to the corruption at SDTC, as ordered by the House on June 10. With this issue dragging on for months now, it is clear the government has entrenched itself. It clearly has something it wants to hide. There is no majority in this House that is going to let the government off the hook. It is not just the Conservatives. For the time being, I am sure there is a price that somebody can be purchased for. I will save my comments for that time when that day comes.

For now, we are at an impasse. If I do not rise on my feet again before this House adjourns for Christmas, when I return, I will have eclipsed the 19th anniversary of my election to the chamber, and I have never seen anything like this. As a matter of fact, to my knowledge, this is the longest privilege debate in our nation's history. Wayne Gretzky set all kinds of great records. The kind of records this guy is setting will certainly have him remembered for all of the wrong reasons in the history books to come.

For those who are watching, here is a quick refresher on the scandal. Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, was an organization that gave taxpayer-funded grants to companies with solutions to improve Canada's environmental record. As I mentioned in a question earlier, this is something there was general consensus about. SDTC was started up, I believe, in the early 2000s by the then Liberal government, Jean Chrétien and his government. This program survived the former Conservative government. We saw the value in Sustainable Development Technology Canada, despite all of the accusations, which are baseless, that somehow Conservatives do not care about the environment, which is simply not true at all; we are just realistic and practical about the environment, which is what differentiates us from everybody else.

The program was maintained all through the tenure of former prime minister Stephen Harper, until the current Prime Minister and the people he chose to appoint to oversee these things. It was his decision. The Prime Minister decides who is in cabinet. He decides who is going to lead in those portfolios. He is the one who judges their character, their virtues and their competencies and he is the one who is ultimately responsible for this fiasco.

The Auditor General found that SDTC doled out nearly $400 million of a $500-million program to contracts that went in some way, shape or form to the benefit of the very board members whom the minister, under the watch of the Prime Minister, had appointed to the board of SDTC, board members who were clearly Liberal appointments. In awarding these contracts, the board members were found to have breached the ethics rules around contracts not once, not twice, not 10 times, not 50 times, not 100 times and not 150 times, but 186 times. In addition, they funded 10 illegitimate projects to the tune of $58 million. These are projects that could not demonstrate an environmental benefit or that they would help with the development of green technology at all.

Now, not only do we have 186 conflicts of interest, but we are actually doling out money for which the purpose was not even indicative in any of the contracts that were awarded. The scandal was so bad that the government abolished SDTC and rolled the fund into Natural Resources Canada, or NRC.

There is a word that comes to mind when we hear of a scandal of this size and of this magnitude. It has been said before, and it will be said again. It is a commonplace word, said virtually every time there is a Liberal government in this country, and that word is “corruption”. It is corrupt. The word “corruption” comes from the Latin word corruptus, a past participle of the Latin word corrumpere. The prefix cor- means “altogether”, and rumpere means “to break”. In old Greek, the word is synonymous with decomposing, putrid and spoiled.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is too bad the hecklers were not listening.

Corruption and decay go hand in hand. As such, when we say that everything feels broken, we say it because we mean it. The country is in decay, and the government's rotten influence is running rampant, spoiling every single thing it touches, including even those programs and services for which there is consensus in all corners of the House. The consensus regarding immigration is another great example of something that this Prime Minister has now destroyed.

My colleague, the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, said in one of his speeches that this is corruption like we have never seen in Canada. I believe that he is correct in his assessment of the situation, with one exception: There is probably one other prime minister who could rival the current profligate spending and graft, and that is the Prime Minister's father. It seems like every time we have a prime minister with that last name, the country ends up on edge. This Liberal rot extends far beyond the SDTC. It now touches every facet of Canadian society and its institutions.

Members can take the natural health product industry, for instance, and I will tie that in. The government took a world-leading regulatory regime, implemented by the previous Harper government, and ripped it up as if it meant nothing. It did not bother to consult with the industry, either. That would have obviously been beneath it. Instead of continuing with the existing framework, the government, led by the inept Minister of Health, decided to move natural health products into the same regime as therapeutic drugs, contrary to previous parliamentary studies and general consensus that vitamins and supplements are not the same things as doctor-prescribed medications. These changes would devastate the natural health product industry. The IADSA, the International Alliance of Dietary Food Supplement Associations, had this to say about the changes that are being proposed by the current government here in Canada:

We are writing today to express our concerns about the regulatory changes being proposed in Canada, which, if implemented, could impact not only the competitive position of the dietary supplement industry within your country but also Canada's position as a global reference point in this area.

Up to now, Canada has been a world leader in the regulation of dietary supplements. We fear that the proposed changes to Canada’s regulatory framework for natural health products risk creating an environment that could stifle the industry and limit Canadians' access to high-quality supplements.

IADSA has always promoted the Canadian model as a global reference point for governments across the world who are creating or redeveloping their regulatory systems. This Canadian model is recognized as providing consumers access to products which are safe and beneficial while fostering innovation and supporting investment in the sector.

Those are probably the most glowing words we could hear from an international organization, touting the regime created by the Harper administration for natural health products as being the gold standard against which every other country is measured. Now it is writing to our committee and to members of Parliament saying that if we pursue the current agenda of the Liberal government, with the support of the NDP, through Bill C-47 and the self-care framework that the regulatory framework entails, we will actually destroy the gold standard, the gold star, the institution that the rest of the world should be modelling itself after and designing itself after.

As a response to the illogical and unwarranted attack on the natural health product industry, I did introduce my private member's bill, Bill C-368, to bring the industry back to the old regulatory regime, yet the government is not done with its attacks. Let me explain to the people at home why an election is so important.

In early spring, the government plans to implement its cost recovery framework through the gazetting process. Bill C-368 may have passed second reading in this place and it may have passed the committee stage, but it is yet to be debated at third reading in the House and passed. It would then have to go to the Senate to go through that same set of steps and processes all over again, all before the next election.

Given that the timeline is probably getting to be fairly unlikely, the government is still free, then, and still has the old legislation it passed in Bill C-47 and Bill C-69, to pursue the regulatory environment to implement the self-care framework. This is a self-funding model that is behind the changes to begin with.

It is a tax grab on the industry to get the people in the small and medium-sized mom-and-pop shops, which are small businesses that create, innovate and develop all the supplements, such as vitamins, protein powders and things of this nature, under the same cost recovery framework that companies like Pfizer or Purdue Pharma would have to actually be under. Nobody in the industry has this kind of money. It is a death sentence for the natural health product industry.

Every day that the government has care and control of the Governor in Council, the ability to pass regulatory changes, it is still allowed, notwithstanding Bill C-368, to pursue this framework. The Minister of Health has said very clearly that he is hell-bent on destroying this institution as well. The government will implement the self-care framework.

For the Canadians who are watching, this is very important. There are two parties so far in the House that have voted non-confidence in the government so we could have an election. An election would kill the ability of the government to pursue the regulatory change to the natural health product industry. It would not be able to gazette anything during an election. At the outcome of the next election, hopefully there is a government that will cease destroying the natural health product industry in Canada.

This is why it is very important that the one party that continues to support the government be held accountable. It is continuing to support the government, even though it may have supported my bill in some bizarre manners. I might add that a member on the health committee actually tried to move a wrecking motion to destroy the bill at committee. Luckily he was granted a time out, heard from tens of thousands of Canadians and changed his ways, and we managed to salvage Bill C-368 at committee.

However, every day that the New Democratic Party continues to prop up the government brings us one day closer to a gazetting process for the self-care framework, which will put the cost recovery model burden on the natural health product industry. That is what will destroy the innovation and growth and destroy the gold standard model that the IADSA says is the best one in the world. That is what is at stake.

We need an election, not just because of all of the other corruption but also because of all the bad ideas. I said that earlier in my speech. Never has there been such a collection of bad ideas, bad judgment and bad leadership in one human being as there is in the current Prime Minister.

I use this example because it is a microcosm of what is wrong with the government. The Liberals cannot work collaboratively anymore. They have no friends left. No one is defending them. I cannot imagine why they are staying the course, because nothing is getting passed in this place. It is only to pursue the regulatory power and authority that they still have that they are clutching on to government. Who is the enabler? It is the New Democratic Party.

One can only conclude that that is the true agenda, even though others might not say so publicly. There is no doubt in my mind that that is what is going on. For those who are watching, what is at risk for the natural health product industry if we do not have an election sooner rather than later is that another gold standard institution will be ruined by the incompetence of the government.

To get back to SDTC, the crux of the matter is document production. Without documents, how are we to hold the government accountable for anything? We in the Conservative Party have asked for documents numerous times, and not just in this particular example. We have asked for them constantly, in every committee.

I happen to be a member of the procedure and House affairs committee at this time. We have asked for document productions many times. We were denied access to documents that members of the media had access to during the foreign interference scandal, for example. Members of the media can see documents that I as an elected member of Parliament have never been able to see, because the Liberal government, propped up by the NDP, whether it is in the House or at committee, always denies Parliament getting access to unredacted documents. It does not matter what the issue is.

In this particular case, it just happens to be the documents surrounding Sustainable Development Technology Canada. If Canadians are wondering why we are making such a big fuss about it, it is because this is the line in the sand. It has been crossed so many times. It was even crossed in the previous Parliament to the point that an election was called to prevent documents for the Winnipeg labs from being tabled in this place. We had someone summoned to the bar, which I do not think had happened for 113 years, who refused to bring documents when he was here. He was admonished by the Speaker of this place.

Also, the government, so self-righteous in its determination to keep things secret, actually took the previous Speaker to court. Everybody knows courts have always said that Parliament is supreme in the matters of its own governance, but that did not stop the government from pursuing that matter, so desperate it was to hide what it had done and to keep it from Canadians.

Here we are at an impasse. We are several months into it, and there is only one political party in this place that does not want to turn over the documents. It is that of the government. All the other parties to date are allowing this debate to continue until the government does what it is supposed to do and what the Speaker has asked it to do. As the Speaker has said, “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.”

Some $400 million of taxpayers' money was inappropriately spent, and 186 conflicts of interest were identified by the Auditor General. This is taxpayers' money. This is a government program. If this is not a textbook case of documents that Parliament should be able to see, then, frankly, I do not know what else would be.

I will wrap up my comments by saying this. A number of us in this place tonight have been here for a long time. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, if I am not on my feet again by the time I return, I will have eclipsed the 19th anniversary of my first election to this place. I have never seen a House of Commons in this much disarray, and I have never seen a government that has lost complete and utter control of the finances of the country and of law and order on the streets. It has lost control of itself and the ability to follow the rules of this place. Shame on them.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill: Bill C-78, an act respecting temporary cost of living relief (affordability).

The House resumed 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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member who just made his proclamation that I have been a parliamentarian, both in government and in opposition, at federal and provincial levels for over 30 years. Never before have I witnessed a political party, like the Conservative Party we see today, being borderline in contempt of Parliament, and this has now been going on for weeks going into months. In fact, the current leader of the Conservative Party gained his first-hand experience a number of years ago when his boss, Stephen Harper, was found in contempt of Parliament, and he has learned from that, because that is what we are seeing here: borderline contempt.

Fast-forward and we see the leader of the Conservative Party again being borderline in contempt of the need to get security clearance. Patrick Brown has said foreign interference is directly in the Conservative Party. Why does the member believe his leader does not have the courage to get a security clearance? Can he tell us what the leader of the Conservative Party is hiding?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker. The leader of the Conservative Party was once a minister of the Crown in this place, in which case he would have had to get a security clearance. He was, obviously, capable of getting a security clearance.

The leader has been very clear in his remarks. Once he subscribes to the Prime Minister's plan for him, the Prime Minister would decide what information the Leader of the Opposition would see and what he would be able to talk about, which would be, effectively, muzzling the Leader of the Opposition. He is smart enough to know when a trap is being set by the Liberal Party and he is smart enough to stay out of it.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to a comment the member made at the beginning of his speech. He was talking about this privilege debate, saying it is the longest in Canadian history and he has not seen anything like this in his almost 20 years in the chamber. I have not been here as long as the member has, but it is my understanding that, as my colleague was just mentioning, the only prime minister to have been found in contempt of Parliament was Prime Minister Stephen Harper. That was, of course, as the member was mentioning how long he has been here, a government he was part of.

The current Prime Minister would perhaps be held in contempt, but we will never know, because the Conservatives are filibustering their own motion. My question is this: Why are the Conservatives letting the Prime Minister off the hook instead of getting the answers we need?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is some pretzel twisting we have to do to follow the logic of the question from the hon. colleague.

I will just let Canadians know how this works, basically. He was found in contempt by a vote of Parliament. It was a minority Parliament for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, and I was a member of the Conservative Party. We had 124 members of Parliament. We do not have any natural allies here. We are the only political entity in the chamber that is actually on one side of the political spectrum. All the other political parties lean heavily to the other side of the spectrum, so they can make any motion, any fabrication they want and pass it, because they will have the numbers to do so any time the Conservatives are in a minority scenario.

To follow up on the rest of the member's question, I was here and it was a kangaroo court. I watched the whole thing. Was it parliamentary? Yes. Was it actually contempt? No, there was no contempt.

I appreciate the fact that the NDP has not folded up its tent and gone home yet on this. However, to answer the question that my colleague actually asked, I mean, at any point in time the NDP could change its tune and allow the government off the hook. If she wants to hold the Liberal Prime Minister to contempt, I suggest she try a unanimous consent motion and see what happens.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the speech and I would just follow up on the last question. I do find the Prime Minister in contempt of Parliament, several times, since I have been here five years and not 19 like my colleague.

If the NDP put forward a motion to find the Prime Minister in contempt, which NDP party does he think would show up, the one that actually is an opposition party or the one that is in the back pocket of the Prime Minister?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, whenever it comes to standing up and lecturing or trying to appear virtuous, the NDP always tries to appear to be doing what it says it is doing, but, every time the rubber hits the road, when it comes to the point of decision, when it really matters, which is when we vote, the NDP always votes the opposite of everything it says. We witnessed it this week. We actually put the words of the NDP leader himself in a motion. The NDP leader and his caucus voted against the very words he said, the very position he took. No one can ever believe anything the leader of the NDP ever says ever again.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member was knowingly misleading the House. He said that there was no contempt—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!