Valerie Bradford

[Privilege, October 22nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I do not recall saying that the documents could be provided to the law clerk. However, I do realize that some of the documents have been heavily redacted, we just heard this yesterday in testimony, and that is the first I became aware of it. The people submitting them must have their reasons for that. I think if they could be reassured that they were not going to be passed over to a third outside party, perhaps they might revisit it, but I have no first-hand knowledge of that.

[Privilege, October 22nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the member is quite right. Not only is it the wrong thing to do, it is completely ineffective for what the opposition is trying to accomplish. RCMP officials have clearly stated that, one, they would not be able to use the information and; two, they have other means to obtain the same information through the normal course of the judicial process, which they could actually use in bringing forward any prosecution. So, not only is it a waste of time, it is an ineffective use of time, and it will not accomplish what the Conservatives are trying to do.

I agree completely with the member. Also, it would send a very bad message to the Canadian public that their charter rights are not being protected, that they can be abused by the Parliament of Canada, which is not anything we would want to convey.

[Privilege, October 22nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree. This is about process. Our government definitely wants this matter to be referred to the appropriate committee for further investigation. That is how it should be dealt with. He is quite right in mentioning that for two weeks, going on three weeks now, the work of the House has ground to a standstill. We are talking about this privilege motion instead of bringing forward new legislation that could actually help Canadians. That is what we are here to do. That is what we are elected to do, to come down here and make life better for Canadians.

There have been multiple committees that have been seized with the SDTC report already, and they have held numerous meetings. It is not just the House of Commons here in the chamber that has been stymied for progress. It is the work of the committees as well. In public accounts, our jurisdiction is to review AG reports. She does hundreds of reports a year. There is a lot of stuff to go into in depth. It is supposed to be a non-partisan committee where we try and get to the root of things, and we are not able to do that because we are going on and on and on, with numerous witnesses on this, when there is nothing further to discern.

[Privilege, October 22nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the problem is not providing the information to Parliament; the problem is when the opposition is demanding that we then forward that information to the police, to a third party, any third party, but particularly when we involve law enforcement. They do not need us to provide that information. They have gone on the record and said that they do not want to obtain the information in this fashion, because they cannot use it.

[Privilege, October 22nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the charter right would be that people have the protection that evidence that they give in confidence to, for example the AG, is not going to be forwarded to the police. When people speak to the AG, they expect that that will be treated in a judicious manner and not forwarded to a law enforcement agency.

[Privilege, October 22nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure of the question. Could the member repeat the question?

[Privilege, October 22nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I believe that when many people co-operate, they are not the guilty party: They are being asked to provide the information they know. I think it is parliamentary privilege being abused here. We are being asked to abuse our parliamentary privilege and use it in a way that was never intended. It is not intended that we provide documents to third parties, in this case the RCMP, when it is quite capable of deciding what it wants to investigate, who it wants to investigate and how it goes about obtaining the evidence it needs. That—

[Privilege, October 22nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House today to address the matter before us about the failure to produce documents pertaining to Sustainable Development Technology Canada. As a member of the public accounts committee, I am very familiar with this particular matter, how it all come to light and how the minister of ISED took corrective actions to address it as soon as it came to our attention.

To brief members, as soon as allegations were brought forward, an investigation was done immediately. Plans were made to fold Sustainable Development Technology Canada into the NRC, and it will abide by very stringent regulations going forward. The former board was dismissed, and we now have a new interim board of three members, only in place for one year to facilitate the transition to the NRC. That work is going very well.

There were 12 recommendations made to address the concerns that have been identified. I am happy to say that already 11 of them have been addressed. The 12th one is under way and should be completed by the end of December this year. That recommendation has to do with reviewing all the various awards of funds that were made to make sure those awards were valid, that nothing untoward was done and that the businesses that applied were entitled to those funds. That is a very important feature.

I want to emphasize that none of the businesses were found to be at fault. It was the director who had a conflict of interest, which is not a reflection on the businesses that applied in good faith. We want to return to funding these very important green, sustainable businesses because they are start-ups that depend on this money. They would not be able to function and carry on without it. That is a very important thing to bear in mind as we are discussing this. We must not lose sight of the key factor that this was a very important funding program that did a lot of exceptionally good work. I worry that sometimes we lose sight of that.

Just to get this on the record, since its creation in 2001, SDTC has invested more than $1.71 billion in over 500 companies that have generated $3.1 billion in annual revenue, created 24,500 jobs, commercialized 224 new technologies and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 25 megatonnes of CO2 annually. SDTC's impact is equivalent to taking almost seven million cars off the road every year, and SDTC-funded companies have received global recognition and are consistently listed on the annual global clean-tech 100 list, where Canada punches well above its weight. Despite all the clouds that have been generated by the AG's report, which was very complete and very well done, we must not lose sight of why the fund was created and all the good work that it has done.

Turning to the privilege motion, which has held up the work of several committees and the House, it is about releasing documents and the problems that are occurring. I want to let the House know that many of the documents requested, a great number, have already been provided. The problem is not about the government making the documents available. It is that we do not want to make them available to third parties like the police because that is an abuse of people's charter rights. We must protect people's charter rights at all costs.

On the record, the AG has stated that if the documents collected in the course of her investigation were released, made public or given to the police, going forward, people may be very reticent to speak to the AG and co-operate with her investigations because of what could happen down the line. They may not have confidence that the information would not be abused and inappropriately shared.

I want to share some concerns. Our committee received from the RCMP commissioner a letter saying that the RCMP does not want to receive the documents from the government because it would not be able to use them. The police are investigating. If the police, in their investigations, feel they need access to documents and information, they have the legal means to get them through the court process. The police can use warrants. If they obtain the documents through legal justice provisions, they can use them in court. Anything they obtain from us would not be usable because they are under the governance of the justice system, which is separate from the parliamentary system. It needs to be that way, and that is what we are fighting to protect.

I want to read some information into the record. Former law clerk Rob Walsh commented on the June 10 House order ordering the production of papers related to SDTC to be sent to the Speaker and then given to the RCMP. He stated, “[in my humble opinion], it is an abuse of its powers for the House to use it's power to demand and get documents from the Government in order to transfer them to a third party (RCMP) that wouldn't otherwise receive them or to compel the Government to give documents to the third party.”

Mr. Walsh further stated that the government must give Parliament the documents it demands, but “not for the purposes of making them available to a third party such as the RCMP.” Mr. Walsh also stated that the House's privileged power to demand the production of documents from anyone is for the purposes of its own proceedings where the legal rights of the affected individuals would be protected by parliamentary privilege.

Another former senior parliamentary counsel to the House of Commons, Mr. Steven Chaplin, was interviewed over the summer and stated that the June 10 order was both “completely unprecedented” and a likely abuse of parliamentary powers. He said that the House of Commons was simply acting as a “mailbox” for the police force, which is not one of its duties. He also stated, “It is not a parliamentary or constitutional function of Parliament to help the police.”

In the same vein, former RCMP deputy commissioner Pierre-Yves Bourduas commented, “we all know that the rule of law is predicated upon a separation between what [Parliament is] doing and the law enforcement agencies, in this case the RCMP.” Separation between Parliament and the police force is critical. He also stated that he believed the House had overstepped, and that this raises a number of constitutional issues.

Mr. Bourduas also said, “there needs to be this separation, this segregation, between Parliament and the gathering of documents and what the RCMP can do because it could jeopardize any future prosecution if the perception, not the reality, the perception, that the RCMP tried to circumvent proper procedures, criminal procedures, could jeopardize any future cases before the court.” He reiterated later, “it's crucial for the RCMP...not only to maintain the separation, but also to maintain the perception of the separation for the general public and for the greater good of our justice system.”

Mr. Bourduas went on to say, “the RCMP would try to avoid [creating charter concerns] at all costs, and this happened before where the RCMP was accused of trying to circumvent legal process, obtaining search warrants by gathering documents that were not legally obtained”. This would severely impact its ability to conduct an investigation that could produce legal consequences if it got to that stage.

A Conservative member, who I believe represents Brantford—Brant, knows that the RCMP does not need help with getting documents. Just recently, he said that what happens if we cannot get a document is we go to court and ask for search warrants or production orders. That is how it is done. The RCMP has its own means to do it, and if it obtains the documents in that fashion, it can use them to prosecute the case. Using its processes for purposes that were never intended and that are not connected to a parliamentary proceeding is the concern.

The RCMP commissioner himself has stated his consternation about the documents sent his way and there is significant risk that the motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and charter protections. Canadians value their charter rights; they are enshrined in our Constitution. We need to assure Canadians that parliamentarians will not use parliamentary privilege to ever abuse those charter rights.

We need to support the AG so that she can conduct her work in an objective fashion, and people who co-operate with her know that they are protected as well, and that any information they divulge will not be used against them and forwarded to the police in a future investigation. That is very critical. We have the documents; we did produce them and more are still coming in from the various agencies requested, but we cannot pass them on to third parties, particularly our national police force. That would be an abuse of the rights of Canadians, and that is not how the information was given originally. It was divulged with the knowledge that people's charter rights would be protected and the information would not be used against them down the line.

[Housing, October 7th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, buying a home is one of the biggest decisions that a Canadian can make in his or her lifetime. Unfortunately, high mortgage costs can be barriers to many, particularly the younger generation seeking to purchase their first home.

Our government has made some of the boldest mortgage reform changes in decades to ensure that younger Canadians can turn home buying into a reality.

Could the Minister of Finance explain to the House how the adjustments to the mortgage amortization period will enhance and improve access to homes for thousands of Canadians?

[Orthotic and Prosthetic Professionals, September 19th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the invaluable contributions of orthotic and prosthetic professionals to the health and well-being of Canadians. These dedicated certified orthotists and prosthetists, and registered orthotic and prosthetic technicians help individuals regain mobility and lead active lives.

Through their expertise, they enhance the quality of life for countless Canadians, including those in my riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler, and strengthen our communities and health care system.

This year, we will celebrate the first-ever National Orthotics and Prosthetics Day on September 19. This day will highlight and promote their essential services and the individuals who benefit from their care. By commemorating this day, we aim to build stronger partnerships and a more collaborative support network for orthotic and prosthetic professionals and their patients across Canada.