Debates of Dec. 12th, 2024

Business of the House

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

Before I invite the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to answer, I would like to thank the hon. member for his good wishes; similarly, I wish all Canadians happy holidays.

The hon. government House leader has the floor.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank my hon. colleague for the kind wishes. Of course, I extend my merry Christmas and happy holidays to him and to all members of the House as well.

This is the last Thursday question and answer for the period. It is something I look forward to every single week, and I look forward to returning to it in January 2025.

In response to my hon. colleague with regard to next week's business, as we will be returning for a couple of days, as was announced earlier this week, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will be presenting the fall economic statement in the House at 4 p.m. next Monday. I know that Canadians across the country and all hon. members in this place will be looking forward to it.

As you well know, Madam Speaker, the last few months have posed several unique challenges around the House of Commons, but I would also like to extend my gratitude to you and to your three fellow chair occupants for all your hard work.

I would also like to pay tribute to the staff who work so hard to help us accomplish so many important tasks, starting of course with the Clerk of the House, Eric Janse, and his colleagues at the table. Our gratitude extends to the House of Commons administration across all sectors and services, to those who provide security services in the parliamentary precinct, and to the pages in the House. We are served by a remarkable group of people, and we are truly always grateful for what they do.

Finally, I would like to extend my deepest thanks to all of the members' staff on the Hill and in our constituency offices for their dedication and tireless efforts.

On behalf of the Liberal members of Parliament, I would like to wish everyone a very merry Christmas, a very happy Hanukkah, happy holidays and all the best for the new year.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I was hoping to rise to be able to wish everybody very happy holidays. Is that something I am still able to do on behalf of the NDP?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will allow the hon. member to do that.

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise on behalf of people, of course, in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith and on behalf of the NDP to say a big thank you to everybody here on the Hill.

As a newly elected member of Parliament in 2021, I am just astonished by the incredible amount of work that is put into allowing us to be here every day, and by all the people who make it happen: the pages, the security personnel and all the people who are making sure that we are fed and that we have what we need to be able to do our job on the Hill representing constituents. Of course I want to also thank, on behalf of the NDP, all the staff here on the Hill, as well as at home in our constituencies.

I want to wish everybody very happy holidays. Happy Hanukkah. Merry Christmas. I hope everybody enjoys time with loved ones over the holidays.

Alleged Withholding of Documents from the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am rising further to the notice I provided to the Chair under Standing Order 48 concerning the third and final report of the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, which was tabled in the House of Commons earlier today.

In brief, on May 31, 2022, the committee adopted an order for the production of several unredacted documents related to the government's declaration of a public order emergency in February 2022, as well as the regulations and orders that were imposed in relation to it.

The committee was particularly concerned with receiving, and specifically ordered, the production of a copy of the government's legal opinion for invoking the Emergencies Act. As outlined in the report, the then deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada wrote to the committee refusing to produce the legal opinion.

The material facts are outlined in the third report's chapter 10, aptly titled “Access to Information and Documents”. I will recap the essential points for the benefit of those who are not familiar with this particular saga, followed by citing pertinent authorities.

In establishing the special joint committee, the House conferred upon it, among other authorities, the power to send for persons, papers and records. I would refer the Chair to subparagraph (m)(ii) of the motion adopted on March 2, 2022, found at pages 471 to 473 and 480 to 484 of that day's Journals. The Senate conferred the identical authority on the committee in subparagraph (l)(ii) of the motion, adopted on March 3, 2022, as recorded in a message that the House received and published at pages 487 to 490 of the Journals for that day.

This being the first ever invocation of the Emergencies Act, the mandate to be pursued by the parliamentary review committee required by law to be appointed was something to be settled. As mentioned in the eighth paragraph of chapter 2 of the third report, the committee adopted a motion that, among other things, articulated the scope of the study it would initially pursue. The mandate included “the options that the Government of Canada utilized during the invocation of the Emergencies Act” and in the “study of each option...the necessity, implementation, and impact of that option.”

Seized with the House's authority to compel the production of documents, the committee sought to do just that with a view to discharging the mandate it had defined. As the committee explains in the 10th paragraph of chapter 10 of the third report, “The Committee also learned that an internal federal government legal opinion had been drafted to determine whether invoking the Emergencies Act was justified under the circumstances, but the Committee was unable to obtain a copy given that solicitor-client privilege was invoked.”

We have since come to know, thanks to the access to information system, that it is a 10-page opinion and forms tab C of the Clerk of the Privy Council's February 14, 2022, memorandum to the Prime Minister to secure his formal approval for invoking the Emergencies Act.

The committee elaborated on this matter later in chapter 10, beginning at paragraph 15, which stated:

It is worth noting that on 31 May 31 2022, the Committee adopted a motion ‘[t]hat an Order do issue for all security assessments and legal opinions which the government relied upon in determining that’ the various thresholds under the Emergencies Act had been met and that the temporary measures exercised under the Act were consistent with the Charter.

For the benefit of the Chair and the House, this is the full text of the order that the committee had adopted:

That an Order do issue for all security assessments and legal opinions which the government relied upon in determining that

(a) the threshold of “threats to [the] security of Canada”, as defined by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, required by section 16 of the Emergencies Act, had been met;

(b) the thresholds required by paragraphs 3(a) or (b) of the Emergencies Act, concerning a “national emergency” had been met;

(c) the situation could not “be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”, as required by section 3 of the Emergencies Act;

(d) the Emergency Measures Regulations were compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the analysis relied upon by the Minister of Justice in discharging his responsibilities under section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act; and

(e) the Emergency Economic Measures Order was compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the analysis relied upon by the Minister of Justice in discharging his responsibilities under section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act,

provided that

(f) these documents shall be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the Senate, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons and any legal counsel which the Committee may appoint, in both official languages, within one month of the adoption of this Order....

Referring back to the special joint committee's third report, the 16th paragraph of chapter 10 described what happened next:

On or around 29 June 2022, a letter in response to the Committee’s document production order was sent by François Daigle of the Department of Justice, in which he writes that “[u]pon full consideration, it is our Department’s determination that all legal opinions in our holdings that would be responsive to the Committee’s order are subject to solicitor-client privilege.” In his letter, he also states the following:

“Although other countries may have occasionally departed from this rule in Canada, it is solely within the discretion of the Government of Canada and its ministers to waive solicitor-client privilege in respect of legal advice provided to the Crown. For reasons of principle and practice, this rarely occurs, and the general rule remains that such advice will normally be withheld from Committees of Parliament, subject to such ministerial discretion and consideration of public policy.”

It is worth mentioning that this letter sets out the grounds for refusal only as they pertain to information protected by solicitor-client privilege, but not by Cabinet confidence.

Elsewhere in Mr. Daigle's letter, found on the committee's website, he wrote bluntly, “I confirm that I am unable to produce legal opinions as sought in the Committee’s order.”

Chapter 10 then recounts several other instances of the committee being stonewalled by government departments claiming various reasons for not complying with the May 31, 2022, document production order. For the sake of brevity, I will jump ahead to the 29th paragraph. It states,

In the two years following the invocation of the Emergencies Act, the Committee recalled some federal witnesses, particularly to obtain answers regarding its multiple requests for access to evidence, including the legal opinion the government relied on before resorting to the Act.

In February 2024, [the current Minister of Justice] reasserted the government's position that the legal advice in question was protected by solicitor-client privilege, which benefits the Government of Canada, the client in this case.

It is also worth mentioning the 14th paragraph of chapter 10, which notes that the committee used a written questioning procedure. It deployed this to gather evidence more efficiently, but it was further stonewalled by the then national security and intelligence adviser to the Prime Minister, Jody Thomas, about the legal opinion. On December 28, 2022, she wrote to the committee and said, “Due to solicitor-client privilege, I respectfully decline to answer this question.” That procedure is described in the special joint committee's minutes for September 22, 2022, as follows: “That the Committee send to each individual organization who appears as a witness written questions submitted by the members of the committee for response”, and there follows a series of details about the procedure.

Going back to chapter 10 of the third report, in the 32nd paragraph, the committee summed up its position, and this is a critical point. It states,

In light of the preceding, the Committee is concerned that it did not have access to all the information and documents that the federal government relied on to invoke the Emergencies Act and the related special temporary measures, in part due to the various types of privilege invoked by many of the witnesses.

In adopting its order on May 31, 2022, the committee was exercising its authority, which is described starting at page 984 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, as follows:

The Standing Orders do not delimit the power to order the production of papers and records. The result is a broad, absolute power that on the surface appears to be without restriction. There is no limit on the types of papers likely to be requested; the only prerequisite is that the papers exist in hard copy or electronic format, and that they are located in Canada. They can be papers originating from or in the possession of governments, or papers the authors or owners of which are from the private sector or civil society (individuals, associations, organizations, et cetera).

In practice, standing committees may encounter situations where the authors of or officials responsible for papers refuse to provide them or are willing to provide them only after certain portions have been removed. Public servants and Ministers may sometimes invoke their obligations under certain legislation to justify their position. Companies may be reluctant to release papers which could jeopardize their industrial security or infringe upon their legal obligations, particularly with regard to the protection of personal information. Others have cited solicitor-client privilege in refusing to allow access to legal papers or notices.

These types of situations have absolutely no bearing on the power of committees to order the production of papers and records. No statute or practice diminishes the fullness of that power rooted in House privileges unless there is an explicit legal provision to that effect, or unless the House adopts a specific resolution limiting the power. The House has never set a limit on its power to order the production of papers and records.

This point was reiterated as recently as the Speaker's ruling on September 26, 2024, at page 25958 of the Debates concerning Sustainable Development Technology Canada documents. Similarly, as noted in Erskine May, 25th edition, at paragraph 38.32, committees of the United Kingdom House of Commons exercise the same powers with the same unlimited scope:

There is no restriction on the power of committees to require the production of papers by private bodies or individuals, provided that such papers are relevant to the committee's work as defined by its order of reference. Select committees have formally ordered papers to be produced by the Chairman of a nationalised industry and a private society. Solicitors have been ordered to produce papers relating to a client; and a statutory regulator has been ordered to produce papers whose release was otherwise subject to statutory restriction.

In recent years, there has been a very high-profile instance of the U.K. House of Commons insisting on the production of government legal opinions when, amidst the Brexit debates on November 13, 2018, it adopted a motion requiring the production of “any legal advice in full, including that provided by the Attorney General, on the proposed withdrawal agreement on the terms of the UK’s departure from the European Union including the Northern Ireland backstop and framework for a future relationship between the UK and the European Union.”

On December 3, 2018, the Attorney General of England and Wales presented to Parliament a command paper which purported to describe the overall legal effect of the EU withdrawal agreement on November 25, 2018. On the same day, he made a statement to the House, neither the command paper nor the statement made reference to the resolution of November 13, 2018, and the command paper did not purport to be a return to the resolution of the House.

Later that day, after representatives of five opposition parties alleged the government had not produced the documents required, Mr. Speaker Bercow ruled that there was a prima facie contempt at column 625 of the official report.

Subsequently, the U.K. House of Commons, on December 4, 2018, adopted the following motion:

That this House finds Ministers in contempt for their failure to comply with the requirements of the motion for return passed on 13 November 2018, to publish the final and full legal advice provided by the Attorney General to the Cabinet concerning the EU Withdrawal Agreement and the framework for the future relationship, and orders its immediate publication.

In response, the U.K. government produced a complete unredacted copy of the Attorney General's legal advice the very next day. The Attorney General later said that he had complied with the second order of the House, “out of respect of the House's constitutional position”, as reported at paragraph 68 of the U.K. House of Commons Procedure Committee's May 2019 report on the power to send for papers.

A fuller description of these events was detailed in the question of privilege raised by the House leader of the official opposition here in Canada on September 16, 2024, concerning the Sustainable Development Technology Canada documents. I adopt his comments for my own arguments for the proposition that the power to send for papers is superior to solicitor-client privilege.

Our own Speaker Milliken held, in his landmark decision on Afghan detainee documents, on April 27, 2010, at page 2043 of the Debates:

It is the view of the Chair that accepting an unconditional authority of the executive to censor the information provided to Parliament would in fact jeopardize the very separation of powers that is purported to lie at the heart of our parliamentary system and the independence of its constituent parts. Furthermore, it risks diminishing the inherent privileges of the House and its members, which have been earned and must be safeguarded.

As has been noted earlier, procedural authorities are categorical in repeatedly asserting the powers of the House in ordering the production of documents. No exceptions are made for any category of government documents, even those related to national security.

Therefore, the Chair must conclude that it is perfectly within the existing privileges of the House to order production of the documents in question.

We would do well to recall that the declaration of emergency committee's order concerned the legal opinion that was relied upon to justify the invocation of the Emergencies Act, a decision that allowed cabinet to legislate without regard to the authority of Parliament or to the usual constitutional division of powers.

In a March 9, 2011, ruling, Speaker Milliken cited page 281 of Sir John Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, fourth edition:

But it must be remembered that under all circumstances it is for the house to consider whether the reasons given for refusing the information are sufficient. The right of Parliament to obtain every possible information on public questions is undoubted, and the circumstances must be exceptional, and the reasons very cogent, when it cannot be at once laid before the houses.

From there, the Chair added, at page 8841 of the Debates:

It may be that valid reasons exist. That is not for the Chair to judge. A committee empowered to investigate the matter might, but the Chair is ill-equipped to do so. However, there is no doubt that an order to produce documents is not being fully complied with, and this is a serious matter that goes to the heart of the House's undoubted role in holding the government to account.

In the present case, the declaration of emergency committee has put the House, both Houses actually, on notice that, “the committee is concerned that it did not have access to all the information and documents that the federal government relied on to invoke the Emergencies Act and the related special temporary measures”.

Before concluding, I wish to address briefly Ms. Thomas' failure to answer the committee's written question. Page 1078 of Bosc and Gagnon reminds us:

There are no specific rules governing the nature of questions which may be put to witnesses appearing before committees, beyond the general requirement of relevance to the issue before the committee. Witnesses must answer all questions which the committee puts to them...if the committee agrees that the question be put to the witness, the witness is obliged to reply.... The actions of a witness who refuses to answer questions may be reported to the House.

This is what has now happened here, and I would submit that it contributes to the overall concern about the government denying the special joint committee the information it sought.

Finally, I will turn to the remedy I would propose, namely to have the House order the production of the documents in question. I would submit that that would be a proper remedy in the present case. Bosc and Gagnon discusses, at pages 138 and 987, the scenario in which a committee would report to the House on a case of disobedience to a document production order, which I note would be a contempt, may be addressed by the House adopting its own order for the production of documents.

Indeed, the 2021 case involving the so-called Winnipeg lab documents saw the House, after its first production order was refused, order the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada attend the bar of the House for, among other things, the purpose of turning over the documents that had not been provided.

This was, in turn, modelled on precedent cases, which Bosc and Gagnon describe at pages 131 and 132. In fact, the Order Paper is currently seized with a privilege motion concerning a similar remedy proposed in relation to Stephen Anderson, who did not turn over documents required by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics concerning the infamous so-called other Randy.

Moreover, I would submit that the Speaker's September 26, 2024, ruling on the Sustainable Development Technology Canada documents, at page 25959 of the Debates, speaks to the usual admissibility of such a motion when the defied order is of an ordinary character, like that which, I would submit, the special joint committee adopted.

The Speaker said:

The members who intervened on this question used words such as “unusual”, “novel” and “unprecedented” to describe this particular production order. The Chair agrees with those characterizations. It is indeed unusual, novel and unprecedented for the House to order documents not for its own purposes but for a third party.... Before insisting on the production of documents, as the opposition House leader proposes to do, the Chair believes the House would benefit from having this matter studied further.

Unlike the SDTC documents order, there is nothing unusual about the order that the declaration of emergency committee had adopted yet failed to see realized. Therefore, I would respectfully submit that a motion to insist on the production of the documents is entirely admissible, should you agree there is a prima facie contempt.

In conclusion, the NDP-Liberal government gave itself sweeping authority to legislate in this place of Parliament and the provinces, and refused to come clean about the legal authority for doing so. Without straying too far into debate, the Rouleau commission heard testimony from the former CSIS director David Vigneault that the events of February 2022 did not meet the threshold that CSIS must apply for threats to the security of Canada, the same threshold Parliament said must be met before any public order emergency can be declared by the cabinet.

However, Mr. Vigneault testified before the commission that there was some special, magical, “separate interpretation” of the threshold that he professionally applied, day in and day out, to justify the decision the Prime Minister and his ministers were hell-bent on making. The fact that the Federal Court of Canada has since ruled that the government's actions in February 2022 were both illegal and unconstitutional only makes it even more imperative that there be full accountability and transparency for the Liberal Prime Minister's unilateral invocation of the sweeping legal powers the Emergencies Act conferred upon him.

It is in this light, Madam Speaker, that I refer you to page 141 of Derek Lee's The Power of Parliamentary Houses to send for Persons, Papers and Records, concerning times when the House may need to compel the production of the Crown's law officers' work product. Lee writes, “[Then U.K. home secretary] Sir Robert Peel also acknowledged the power of the House in requiring the opinion of the law officers: ‘They stand in the situation of all other responsible servants of the Crown; and there can be no doubt that they are liable to have their opinion called for, and their official acts revised, where sufficient grounds exist [in the opinion of the House] for such a proceeding.’

“An example of where the House might wish to require production, Sir Robert Peel said: ‘If there were a suspicion that they [law officers of the Crown] had acted under undue influence, an imputation against them of straining a point in favour of the Crown, the law-officers would be justly liable to have their opinions called for, and their official acts investigated.’

“Similarly, Sir Robert Peel said: ‘I will suppose a case where the law-officers gave a wrong opinion, or where there was an opinion given against which the Government acted; in either of those cases, I admit, the House would be justified in calling for the production of the opinion.’”

That is why the special joint committee worked so vigorously to obtain a copy of the infamous legal opinion and is also probably why the government has so steadfastly refused to shed any light on this matter. That is why I urge the Speaker to find a prima facie case of privilege in the circumstances and to permit the House to vote on ordering the production of the government's legal opinion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to thank the hon. member for the information he has brought forward on this question of privilege. Certainly, we will review all of what he has provided and come back to the House on this.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment; the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Calgary Centre, Oil and Gas Industry.

The House resumed from December 11 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

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say something before I begin my speech about this motion, which has to do with transparency in the work of Parliament.

Let me pay my respects to my generous and very impressive colleague from Brantford—Brant. He showed in the last minute exactly what leadership is all about when we talk about judiciary issues, and especially from a lawyer. Yes, we are lawmakers, but most of us are not lawyers. We are not liars, either, but we are not lawyers; that was one of the mistakes I made when I was first elected nine years ago. My hon. colleague from Brantford—Brant showed exactly what a lawyer shall do here in the House, to indicate clearly what we have to do to follow the rules of this Parliament and to follow the rules of this great country, Canada.

This brings me to the subject before us today. We are here to talk about the same subject again, because, unfortunately, the government is refusing to comply with an order from the Speaker to hand over documents to a third party, the RCMP. We are gathered here because we need to restore Canadians' confidence in our parliamentary institutions and in the institutions we create for policies that are intended to be positive.

The purpose of the green fund that we are talking about today is to reduce pollution. That is something that we can all agree on. Unfortunately, there has been some misappropriation and misuse of taxpayers' money in this case, which has led to some ethical problems and, more importantly, to problems related to the trust that people have in our institutions. I will have an opportunity a little later to talk about another case in which we think that public funds are not being properly managed. This is supported by the analyses conducted by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. I am talking about the net-zero accelerator initiative.

Yesterday, in parliamentary committee, we received different groups that are interested in the environment. These are people that I meet regularly as the Conservative Party critic for the environment and climate change. I have met and spoken with the representatives from Nature Canada, who came to see me in my office. We had an instant connection. That was not the case on every political issue, but we felt a mutual trust.

One of the directors was there yesterday at the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. Mr. Akaash Maharaj, policy director at Nature Canada, said that when governments miss their targets or mismanage public funds, that hurts public expectations and undermines public support for environmental programs. He concluded by saying that it is better to keep modest promises than to have ambitious targets that are not met.

That is precisely where we are. It is better to say nothing at all than to make grand speeches, grand gestures and grand announcements or set ambitious targets without ever being able to meet them. Our approach is to carry out meaningful, effective, realistic and responsible actions that deliver real results.

Let us not forget that, since this Liberal government took office nine years ago, Canada has become the worst country in the G7 when it comes to the fight against climate change. According to a new report by world-renowned scientists recently tabled at COP 29, after nine years of this Liberal government, Canada ranks 62nd out of 67 countries for its performance on climate change. We are not the ones saying that. I am not saying that and neither is the Conservative Party. It is a group of world-renowned scientists who said it. Every year, they submit a performance index for 67 countries. After nine years of the Liberals lecturing everyone, insulting people who do not think like them and taxing people, this Liberal Canada is ranked 62nd out of 67 countries.

Let us come back to the infamous SDTC green slush fund. It was not created by the current government. It was created over a decade ago and was intended to support the work of companies that are seeking to conduct research and to develop techniques and technology that they can directly apply to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. At the risk of repeating myself—as environment critic, I am more than happy to do so—we all agree on the main elements. Where we differ is in the approach.

In his now-famous Quebec City speech, which took place almost a year and a half ago, the member for Carleton and leader of Canada's Conservatives outlined the Conservatives' environmental approach. He defined the pillars of the environmental action we will undertake if we are fortunate enough to win the confidence of Canadians in the next election, which would delight us.

We all recognize that climate change is real, that we must deal head-on with its challenges, its implications and its impact on everyday life. Yes, we need to reduce emissions and pollution, but Conservatives believe we need to adopt approaches that are far more pragmatic than dogmatic. For the past nine years, we have been seeing dogmatic approaches, with the results we know: Canada is the worst country in the G7 and the 62nd country out of 67 according to world scientists.

Our approach will be based on concrete measures. Technically speaking, we agree with the principles behind SDTC's green fund. However, the problem lies with the way these Liberals have managed this fund.

I would remind the House that SDTC had a $500‑million budget. The Auditor General looked into this and found 186 instances of ethics rules being broken. In all, $390 million of the $500 million was mismanaged. That is almost four out of every five dollars. Only one in five dollars was managed properly, and four out of five dollars were not managed according to the rules, certainly not according to ethics rules.

What have we seen over the last five years?

It was literally a revolving door. Board members gave each other public money through the programs they were managing. That is not how it is supposed to work. That is not how to earn the public's trust.

The Conservatives are not the ones saying that. I am not the one saying that. It was the Auditor General, who analyzed how the green fund was managed over the past five years. The fund has very good objectives, but, unfortunately, it was managed the Liberal way. That is why their cronies were scratching each other's backs and exchanging envelopes of Canadian taxpayers' money. They were donating to each other's own companies.

Right from the start of this operation five years ago, board members realized that, four times out of five, they were in a conflict of interest. They had to leave the room and leave their seat empty, but in the very next seat, someone else was making the same decision for their own business. The only thing these people should have done was stop and admit that they were the wrong people in the wrong place. There are thousands of people in Canada who know how to run public companies. I understand that this requires a certain expertise in technology and the environment. I understand that, but when board members are in a conflict of interest four times out of five, it is high time they woke up. Everyone needs to have the honour and the sense of responsibility to say that enough is enough and admit it when they are not the right person in the right place.

Instead, the Liberals, who are all about friends helping friends, allowed the situation to continue. Unfortunately, as we saw, this just continued to happen. That is why the Auditor General produced a scathing report indicating that the Conflict of Interest Act, particularly subsection 6(1) and section 21, had been violated because of the private interests of the heads of this organization. The minister was made aware of the conflicts of interest but took no action.

I am talking about former minister Navdeep Bains, who testified before the committee. He was warned that there was a problem concerning an inappropriate situation and he did nothing. A few years later, the Prime Minister appointed another minister. It is a minister for whom I have a great deal of respect and esteem, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain. Unfortunately, according to the Auditor General's report, the current minister “did not sufficiently monitor” what was happening within that organization.

When the information was made public, all of a sudden, the minister, who is also the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, stopped everything. He said that he was stopping everything until the situation could be assessed. However, he only took action when the information was made public, despite the warning that had been given to his predecessor.

Not to mention that leadership comes from the top. The Prime Minister of Canada has been the subject of three ethics investigations. On two occasions he was found guilty of not complying with the ethics rules. When the top of the pyramid, the Prime Minister, does not follow the ethics rules and is found guilty two out of three times of not complying with ethics rules, this has an unfortunate and sad impact and tends to trickle down. That is what is happening right now at many levels of this government and that is what happened with this $500-million green fund that was so badly managed. That is why we need to tighten things up. That is why we, the three opposition parties, asked that the documents be transferred to a third party. That is an order from the House. The Chair recognized that these documents did indeed need to be transferred to a third party. Naturally, this created a precedent. Everything starts with a precedent, however, so one can certainly be created here.

However, let me remind colleagues that we are talking about the RCMP; we are not talking about the private business of someone else, Joe whoever, or I do not know who. I have full confidence in the RCMP as a group, as an authority and as being made up of serious people. Yes, I trust the RCMP. If some people in the House have a problem with the RCMP, they just have to say that. That is not what we think here.

We need transparency, responsibility and accountability more than ever; that is why this is a matter of the House. Unfortunately the government refuses to do what the order is telling it to do. As long as the government refuses, we cannot move forward.

As Chantal Hébert so aptly commented not long ago, the Conservatives are taking a lot of flack. We are being accused of slowing everything down. If the Liberals wanted to, they could end this immediately. However, they are not going to do that. The same holds true for the other two opposition parties. They could take action. What we want is to have the order carried out. That was for the green fund. What is happening in the House right now is extremely interesting, but as an old parliamentarian, I urge all Canadians to pay careful attention to what is going on in parliamentary committees.

Well, I am not that old, even if I have white hair, but after 16 years of parliamentary experience I can tell colleagues one thing: Committees are doing a lot of very interesting work. I know that some colleagues on the other side of the aisle think exactly the same way. Yes, what is happening right now during question period in the House of Commons is very important, but there is a lot of good work being done in committees.

Speaking of good work, we at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development have once again shown that another funding entity is sadly being mismanaged as well. So far, the problem is not as serious as what happened before, but that is why we want to delve a lot deeper into the matter. The fund is called the net-zero accelerator. Three key words: accelerate to reach net zero. The goal is to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. By then, this country must have reached net zero. That means picking up the pace. No matter what, the zero target must be reached by 2050. What lessons have we learned after years of this Liberal government?

Let us not forget that we are talking about an $8-billion envelope. Earlier, we were justifiably upset about $380 million out of a total of $500 million being mismanaged. Now we are talking $8 billion. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development looked into the management of various things here and there. He wanted to know what that looked like. So far, about half the envelope has been spent. What we are learning is that there is a flagrant lack of objectives, a flagrant lack of respect for the rules surrounding the net-zero accelerator's actual objective. Do not forget that this means net zero by 2050. We need targets. Unfortunately, no progress has been made pretty much anywhere.

We have learned that a mere five of the 17 projects analyzed had targets, according to the commissioner. The whole purpose of the net zero accelerator initiative is to set a target that the entire planet set for itself under the Paris Agreement, namely, net zero by 2050. Billions of dollars are being invested to meet these targets. Now we have learned that, at the halfway point, with $4 billion spent so far, only five of 17 companies have targets. Of course, it is easy to meet a non-existent target. They get the money, but they have no target.

Here is a great example of that: $700 million of taxpayers' money was given to a foreign firm that had no reduction targets. Obviously, I am talking about the agreement announced with great fanfare a year and a few months ago, when Volkswagen, a foreign company, received a contribution that could go up to $18 billion of taxpayers' money. One might even call it a donation. The company was given taxpayers' money via a direct subsidy. That $700 million has already been paid out. It is important to understand that this is not revenue from the goods and services tax, the GST, because all the GST does is pay the interest on the debt that this government has doubled over the past nine years. That is how bad things have gotten. All Canadians need to know that, when they pay GST, the money is not being invested in the services to which they are entitled. Instead, it is being used to cover the interest on the debt that this insatiable government, which has no scruples about spending and no parameters, has allowed to balloon over the past nine years.

When the government takes tax dollars from working people and hands them over to a foreign entity, one would at least expect it to have real objectives, but there are none. It is disappointing. There is no accountability. Based on how certain targets are calculated, they are sometimes counted twice. I am not the one saying this. The environment commissioner said so. The government is exaggerating the reductions that are being assessed. The government cannot say how much greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions have been reduced with this project. The government cannot say how much money has been allocated to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. On top of that, five out of 17 projects have no targets. They are, however, receiving funding from taxpayers. That is not the right way to manage taxpayers' money. This means that people may not have the confidence they should have when it comes time to have a proper and intelligent discussion about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

However, when this government took office, the mandate letter of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said the following:

To realize these objectives, I ask that you achieve results for Canadians by delivering the following commitments.

...Support the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry in the implementation of the Net Zero Accelerator initiative, with an emphasis on ensuring that investments drive industrial transition and significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions on a scale consistent with achieving Canada's climate goals and meaningfully transform Canadian industry to lead and compete in a net-zero emissions future.

My goodness, that is well written. It would be even better if those instructions had been followed, but that did not happen. There are always plenty of words, targets, ambition and attempts, but very little in the way of real results. Canada is the worst country in the G7. It is 62nd out of 67. However, the Liberals are great when it comes time to make announcements and put on a big show. Unfortunately, that is what we saw with Lion Electric in Quebec. I take no pleasure in saying that, because I am a proud Quebecker. The government made a big announcement three years ago, but it did not take action when it was time to do so. The result is that, today, the company has invested billions of dollars without achieving any real results.

More than ever, Canada needs a serious government that spends taxpayers' money appropriately to reduce emissions and pollution.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative member cites a number of studies. I have one that was released today. It comes from two economists at the University of Calgary, Trevor Tombe and Jennifer Winter. These two economists found that the price on pollution has had a minimal impact on inflation since 2019. Most price increases are the result of global factors.

This is a far cry from the nuclear winter that the Conservatives were announcing. The study also says that hyperbole by politicians is nothing new and that voters should keep that in mind. I say all of this to set the record straight.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, the carbon tax issue will be resolved when the government has the courage, the honesty and the dignity to ask Canadians to go to the polls. Canadians will have the opportunity to have a say on that.

The reality is that the report that was tabled by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development indicates that greenhouse gas reductions projected after 10 years cannot be reliably estimated. Those are not my words. It is the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development who said that.

He said that these projects undergo a quantitative assessment to determine their potential for contributing to a net-zero economy. Their primary objective aligned with the net zero accelerator model is to support our 2050 objectives. Accordingly, the contribution agreements do not include any commitment to reduce greenhouse gases in the short term.

We were talking about words earlier. How can we trust this government that crows about great principles and ambitious targets? As the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development said in his report, unfortunately, there is no way to check this. Barely five out of 17 projects have targets, while the very objective of the net zero accelerator initiative is to set targets.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague highlighted some really important things, including that the Liberal government continues to put forward targets and miss its targets. It is like a constant public relations campaign. I want to thank my colleague for supporting my motion, M-151, to tackle plastic pollution and the House also did, unanimously, in 2018. It led to the first-ever ghost and derelict fishing gear fund. However, what did the government do this year on World Oceans Day? It announced that it is going to host the 2nd International Fishing Gear Innovation Summit. The Liberals talk about their global leadership when it comes to tackling ghost and derelict fishing gear and bringing together harvesters. They are going to host that here in Canada, but they failed to tell the international community that they killed the program. They actually stopped funding this world-class program, but they are going to host a summit to talk about their great program that they killed.

What does my colleague think about the constant public relations campaign when we have really important environmental issues, which I know he and people in Quebec City care about, when it comes to tackling plastic pollution and protecting our planet?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his direct assertion of the fact that the government, unfortunately, is very proud and very strong on announcements but is not strong on results

It reminds me of something very special. In my home city, Quebec City, there is a company producing plastic products and 95% of its plastic comes from recycled plastic, which is great. The problem is the recycled plastic comes from the Philippines. We have to travel halfway around the world to have access to something that we have plenty of here in this country. More than ever, we need that kind of concrete action to have access to our own recycled plastic and have our own company produce it, instead of having to reach out halfway around the world to access to that product.

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

Madam Speaker, there was a privilege motion just before the member stood up and the Conservatives were saying that the threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act has not been met. That is the Conservative Party's conclusion, but Justice Rouleau said in an inquiry that the threshold had been met. The Conservatives say not to believe the judge or the courts, believe the Conservatives.

Fast-forward to the motion we are talking about now. The RCMP says that the Conservative strategy of trying to release unredacted documents directly to the RCMP is wrong. The RCMP does not want the information. The Conservatives are saying not to listen to the RCMP, listen to the Conservatives.

It seems that the Conservatives are being very self-serving and are completely ignoring things like the RCMP and our judicial independence. Can the member tell us why?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I spoke a few minutes ago about the fact that I have been honoured and privileged to be elected by the people for the last 16 years. I served seven years at the National Assembly and nine years in the House of Commons. I think that my hon. colleague has been a member of the legislature for 24 years?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Twenty years.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Okay, 20 years. Madam Speaker, he is a young man, too.

I have to remind the member that it is quite important to respect the rule made by the Speaker. I know he agrees with me and this is an order from the Speaker. More than that, when we are talking about environmental issues, let me quote what an expert said just yesterday in the committee.

The policy director at Nature Canada said that when governments miss targets or mismanage public funds, it hurts public expectations and public support for these programs. He added that it is better to have modest promises that are met than ambitious targets that are not.

I invite the government to reflect on these words from this highly regarded environmental activist in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague and I have been colleagues together here for quite some time in the House of Commons. He is a fine representative not only of Quebec but of Canada, with lots of experience. One of the things that I found deeply disturbing about this, as somebody who has a background in environmental science, as I worked in that field when I was a much younger man, is the fact that there was not much politics going on at Sustainable Development Technology Canada. There was generally a consensus among all parliamentarians that SDTC was generally doing good things and advancing technology and development in environmental sustainability.

Can my colleague comment on how that has now been ruined by the incompetence of the government?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know that my hon. colleague is a strong advocate for concrete action to reduce emissions and to reduce pollution. This is what we need more than ever in this country, and especially in the House of Commons. We need to have people who are more concerned with concrete action than big announcements. Unfortunately, with regard to this fund that we are talking about, which we have to identify as the green slush fund, in the last five years, the government used it as a fund to give gifts to some of their supporters. That is not the way to deal with it.

As I said earlier, this is coming from the top, when we have seen the Prime Minister twice recognized as not respecting the ethics rules. If the example is coming from the top, unfortunately, it will fall, with all the dirty stuff, to other administrative corps. That is exactly what we have seen in this. It is not me who is saying that. This is the Auditor General, who published a report saying that 186 times they did not act correctly, which means that $390 million was not invested correctly out of $500 million, so $4 out of $5 were not treated correctly. This is the Liberal heritage. Shame on them.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to go back to my first question. The member is an experienced parliamentarian. I would suggest that the motion that we are debating says that we take the issue out of the floor of the House of Commons and put it into a committee. The member knows that because it was a Conservative motion. The Conservatives are holding the floor of the House of Commons hostage because they are trying to push their agenda, which goes against what the RCMP is recommending.

Does he not agree, as a parliamentarian, that it is a little bit more touchy than he is trying to imply?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is very disappointing for me to say this, but unfortunately the real hostages in the country are Canadians, because they are hostages of the government. If Liberals want to do something strong, they should call an election and let the people decide, and then we will see where Canadians stand.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the people's House.

Once again today, sadly and unfortunately, we are continuing to have to hold this government to account as it relates to producing documents that have been repeatedly requested by a clear majority in the House and backed by the Speaker's ruling. Once again, it would behoove this government to act upon on that, and then we can move on to other business that Canadians want us to be discussing. However, we cannot do that until we have the assurance of transparency on this very serious matter.

Part of the role of the official opposition is to hold the government to account and to make sure that taxpayer funds are used responsibly, and for good reason. Anyone looking at this right now clearly understands and clearly agrees with the official opposition, and other opposition parties, that there is a definite lack of transparency. Therefore, Canadians are wondering why they are working hard every day to make ends meet while somehow the friends, special privileged groups and organizations that seem to match ideologically with the government of the day are receiving an abundance of funds. It is amazing how much they are getting to fund an ideology without results. I think that many Canadians share our frustration.

We have a government that soars in the rhetoric of healing the planet, cleansing the oceans, rolling back the tides and bringing down temperatures, but when we look at the reality of it, there are no results. There is a lot of money going out the door, a lot of philosophical debate, a lot of virtue signalling at these grand national stages and conferences around the world. The Liberals go all over and talk about, “We're going to do these great things for the environment. Look at how much money we're spending.” However, Canadians are not nearly as concerned about an announcement that is going to spend more money on the government's friends. They want results, and they are frustrated because they are getting no results for the absolute gargantuan amount of money that is being spent.

We need a government that prioritizes the priorities of the people. I think if the Liberals did take it to the people in a carbon tax election, like we have been calling for, they would hear clearly that their priorities around this are not the priorities of the people they say they represent. Need I go any further than the grandiose announcement about planting trees? When we think about it, two billion trees, it is amazing. It is incredible and makes us feel warm and fuzzy that we are going to plant all of these trees. Do members know how many trees have been planted? Only 0.04% of the target number of trees have been planted. It is an amazing outcome for the amount of money the Liberals are spending and how few results we are getting.

People want real, tangible, practical results, which is why we are going to continue to hold this government to account, demand transparency and ask that it release the documents, as the majority of the House, the people's representatives, have clearly asked for and as the Speaker has ruled and said that we deserve. It is time that transparency came to the House. It is time that honesty comes to the people's chamber and that we get the results we want.

We come to this place now where we are looking at a gargantuan amount of money going out the door with no real transparency or accountability, and as a result, Canadians' level of frustration is growing. We see it on their faces. They work day after day to earn the dollars that they have, and at the end of the day, they have more bills than they have money to pay those bills. No wonder they are upset. No wonder they are angry when they look at a government that does not prioritize their needs and does not seem to be concerned about their priorities. Instead, it has all kinds of time and money for its ideology. However, right now, with a nation that is facing an economic crisis with the threat of tariffs on the horizon, basically people are wondering, “Do I pay the rent? Do I get groceries, or do I put gas in my car? Can I buy my kids Christmas gifts this year, or do I make my rent payment?” These are not fictional stories; it is the reality.

Our food bank use has overwhelmingly grown. In my region, food bank usage is up over 30% year over year. That is a staggering stat. People are now wondering, especially seniors on fixed incomes, how they will make it to the new year when they are looking at escalating power bills and fuel costs, and every time they go to get groceries it is costing more. I think we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to be responding to those kinds of needs and those matters. It is too bad that those on the other side will not simply comply with the order of the House, release the documents and get back to work on the priorities of Canadians.

The frustration is real. They are being taxed and burdened. I cannot help but think of that. It is said that history repeats itself. In reality, it probably does not repeat itself, but it certainly does rhyme. We will find rhymes throughout history and cycles within politics, governments and societies.

It is a wonderful time of year, Christmastime. This will come as no surprise to many in the House, but I cannot help but think of the most wonderful story that has been told and is still being told the world over. It is why literally billions will be celebrating this month. It is the wonderful story of Christmas. Anyone might ask how Christmas relates to what we are talking about, but it does.

On that very first Christmas, it was written that it came at a time of taxation. It was a heavy and burdensome time of taxation, and a census had to be done to find out exactly what the population was in that region so more taxes could be collected. The census was rendered and everyone was to return to their place of origin or birth.

A young man by the name of Joseph, who had taken a young, beautiful lady by the name of Mary to be his wife, had to make the journey to Bethlehem. It was not an easy journey. We have a way of romanticizing the imagery. We have these wonderful images of nativity, but it was probably not very pretty nor exciting at the time for this terrified young couple, who were living under accusations and probably being very much falsely accused. The rumour mill was rampant. They were heading out into uncertainty. She was not just early in her pregnancy, but a long way into it.

I do not know about members, but I am thankful that I have never had the experience of carrying a young one inside me, but my beloved bride has, and I must say—

[An hon. member]

You had the better part.

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, I had the better part. I will agree. I remember that when she was with child, I had no way of totally understanding that or relating to it.

Members should picture this and go with me now on this journey. Can they imagine what this couple would have been feeling as they started out and a very pregnant lady is on the back of a donkey going down a bumpy road, very much with child, with a young man?