Debates of Oct. 10th, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we can always anticipate when quorum might be called because it is almost like a ship, when it is on fire and the rats flee the ship. We look over at the Conservative benches—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I appreciate the good try, but we really cannot say whether people are in the chamber.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the Speaker might ask me to retract the word “rats”.

At the end of the day—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the hon. member for the reminder. I wonder if the hon. member would retract the word “rats”.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I retract the word “Conservatives” and the association to rats. Having said that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

As I asked the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to just retract the word “rats”, without any explanation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I retract the word “rats”.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary.

The hon. parliamentary secretary may continue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating a motion saying that an issue at hand should go to the procedure and House affairs committee. That would provide a wonderful forum for all members of the House to address the content of the issue, in terms of why it is referred to the procedure and House affairs committee.

However, because the Conservatives ran out of speakers on the amendment, they moved an amendment to the amendment so they could start all over again and speak to the subamendment. That is actually why I get to speak on the motion again. It is interesting: We have had dozens and dozens of Conservatives stand up to speak to the motion, but I believe I am only the second Liberal that has spoken to it.

I can tell members opposite that there is a great desire to stop playing the game. That is not only coming from Liberal members but also even other members. There might even be a few closet Conservatives who would like to see us move on. Not all Conservatives are speaking on it, which no doubt defies the House leadership's decision to continue to have speaker after speaker stand up.

Why the issue needs to go to PROC is very simple. It is not that complicated. Let me get to the core. There is a letter. SDTC has been an issue the government has been on top of ever since it became public. The issue is that, because of wrongdoings that have been discovered, standing committees want information, and understandably so.

As with other governments, whether provincial or previous federal governments, we often get redacted information. This is done to protect a spectrum of interests. There is nothing different in terms of what the government has actually done.

In wanting to make a game of this and trying to point the finger, the Conservatives have said they want not only to have those unredacted documents but also for the unredacted documents collected here in the House to be handed directly over to the RCMP. That raises the concerns of a good number of people.

We say that this is in fact a Charter issue, a process issue, and it is blurring the independence of our judicial system. However, we get all the legal beagles coming from the other side saying that we do not know what we are talking about. The Conservatives do not know what they are talking about; it is not just Liberals who are saying that.

I will give a direct quote from the RCMP. This is in relation to the tactic that the Conservative Party is using in order for us to be able to talk about concerns that Canadians have. This is the tactic that the Conservatives are using in order for us to pass legislation that is going to have an impact on all Canadians in every region of our country.

The Conservatives are so focused on themselves and not the concerns of Canadians that this is the type of game they are playing. I will read from the letter to show what the RCMP has to say. Let us remember that the Conservatives are actually asking for unredacted documents to be collected and sent directly to the RCMP. The commissioner responded to that request, saying, “There is significant risk that the Motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.”

It is not the Liberal Party or the Government of Canada saying that. That is the independent office of our institution, the RCMP. Even though I have had many opportunities to question Conservatives on the issue of whether they are concerned about what the RCMP are saying, not one of them has had the courage to actually address that directly. I have witnessed dozens and dozens of them standing up, but not one of them has done so, because they are not concerned about such issues as the charter, our Constitution or proper process. They are concerned about trying to turn this into a game in which they can score cheap political points.

To try to give the false impression that the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister or the minister responsible does not care about the issue is just wrong. That cannot be substantiated.

Let us go through the actual process, in terms of what has taken place. A number of years ago, Navdeep Bains appointed a chair to SDTC. That chair was actually an adviser; she gave advice to Stephen Harper, a Conservative. She gave advice to Brian Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative. I often hear the Conservatives talking about how wonderful the late Jim Flaherty was; he was a former Conservative finance minister. They might be surprised, or likely not, to learn that the SDTC chair actually gave advice to him.

Navdeep Bains appointed her to an arm's-length organization of which we appointed maybe 50% of the board; the rest of the members were appointed outside that. After the appointment, a couple of years went by and we found out that there were issues that were taking place that should not have been taking place. As a direct result, the government, through the minister responsible, had an internal review done. In fact, we have had two. We have had the Auditor General look at the issue. We have had hours and hours of debate in our standing committee. The Conservatives, because they want their cheap political points in this game, are now asking what the next step is. They want to get unredacted documents—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Calgary Heritage is rising on a point of order.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to give the translators some time to ease their ears. What we are hearing across the aisle is quite voluminous.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I appreciate the thought for our translators, but I do not think that is really a call for a point of order.

While I have the seat, I might as well just answer this question quickly, and I will give the opportunity for that to happen.

I will answer the question asked by the hon. member for Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères. The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, specifies on page 403 that “Members need not be in their assigned seats in order to be counted” when a quorum is called. They can be behind the curtains. As long as the Speaker can see them, they can be counted as if they were in the House.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor. I did not take any time away at all.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that attempt by the Conservative member to be humorous is somewhat sad, because at the end of the day, as more and more Canadians find out who the leader of the Conservative Party really is, I think they will become disenchanted and disappointed because of the unethical behaviour that we have witnessed on numerous occasions. The type of misinformation that is espoused raises legitimate concerns. Then, for the member across the way to try to make a joke of a very serious issue when we have the independence of the RCMP and call into question a tactic that is being used here, I find it sad, even though the member sits in his corner and laughs.

At the end of the day, we have a government that has been working on the issue to ensure that there is a high sense of accountability and there is, in fact, going to be accountability on the issue. However, what I find interesting is that the strategy now of the Conservative Party is to say “ignore what the RCMP concerns are and ignore the Auditor General” who affirms the RCMP, another independent institution. The Conservatives say “just ignore what they are saying”; and move full steam ahead.

It was interesting. The New Democratic speaker before me talked about the Afghan scandal with Stephen Harper. I remember that scandal. It is interesting that the leader of the Conservative Party of today was there during that scandal. A number of the Conservatives who are sitting across from me were there during that scandal when Stephen Harper refused to provide unredacted documents.

Speech after speech, we hear the Conservative Party members, not necessarily talking about the process or the procedure that should be followed, which is the motion, but rather talking about character assassination and listing off what they believe to be scandals. I have said this before and I have read about it. I have no problem at all comparing our actions as a government to the types of decisions that were being made under Stephen Harper. I wish that we would actually see some of the Conservatives who were there during the Harper regime stand up and provide their defence on the issue and why they have had some sort of come-to-Jesus moment in terms of a complete road-to-Damascus reversal of their positioning.

Now, the Conservatives feel that, as parliamentarians, we have a supreme right, and that is where I do agree,. We have a supreme privilege that enables us to do things that other Canadians cannot do. Where I disagree is this: Just because we have that ability does not mean that we should be using that ability. I have heard Conservative members talk about how Centre Block had a jail in the basement and how we have had individuals walk away from the gold bar and just drive away, implying they should have been put in jail. What a slippery slope it is when we feel that we can just instruct the RCMP and ignore what it is telling us, and then another member says we should have the right to put someone directly into jail. The Conservatives like to think that they are there to protect the individuals of our society regarding rights and freedoms.

I will stay away from some of the other issues that many of my colleagues have raised. Conservatives even think about issues like the notwithstanding clause and how it is no problem to use it. Why? It is because Parliament can. What a terrible attitude to have.

SDTC is an arm's-length organization, meaning that there is no political interference and it makes the decisions. There is a responsibility for us to ensure that there is accountability, and we have been doing that. That is the reason, as I say, there have been internal investigations. That is the reason it went to the standing committee.

There are silly comments in the speeches coming from the other side and they try to justify them because they happen to be here on the floor of the House of Commons. There are assertions of people being Liberal-friendly and that there is all this corruption. That is what Conservatives say. If, at the end of the day, they want to talk about pure corruption, as they often do, let me touch on a few of them.

There were the Conservative anti-terrorism scandal, the Conservative Phoenix scandal, the Conservative G8 spending scandal and the Conservative ETS scandal. Interestingly enough, the ETS scandal was a $400-million scandal that involved a minister. Members should google it and find out. Maybe then the Conservatives will look in a mirror and react to their own behaviour. There was the Conservative F-35 scandal, the Conservative Senate scandal and the Conservative election scandals, more than one. We will remember the robocalls and one of the Conservative MPs walking out in leg cuffs. They should not talk to us about scandals. They should look in a mirror.

This is an issue the government has been on top of. This is an issue that should be going to the PROC committee. At the end of the day, the government would be doing a disservice to the RCMP, the Auditor General and Canadians by just giving in to the Conservatives' bullying and what they feel they are entitled to. I would suggest that this needs to come to an end and be given over to PROC so we can start dealing with issues that Canadians are dealing with.

We have had the introduction of bills like the Citizenship Act, the military court legislation, the rail and marine safety legislation and the online harms bill. Legislation was introduced earlier this morning. There is a lot on the agenda. Canadians want us working for them, not working for the Conservative Party's interests. I am asking members opposite to put Canadians ahead of their own political party. There is still a full year to go. Let us maximize that and get things done for Canadians.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if something is stolen from him, does the hon. member call the police or does he call a committee? We are talking about over $480 million and 186 conflicts of interest that the Auditor General has identified, and with that, $400 million of taxpayers' funding is gone, given to Liberal cronies, Liberal colleagues and people within that organization. All we are saying is to allow the RCMP the opportunity to read the documents unredacted.

If somebody steals something from the member, does he call the police or does he call a committee?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, where should I start? I think the best way to start is with what is taking place today.

The Conservative Party is asking, through a motion, to collect the unredacted documents and give them to the RCMP.

This is what the RCMP had to say about that tactic: “There is significant risk that the motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.”

That is not me saying this, but the RCMP. This is the body that the Conservatives want to give the information to. My God, how much simpler could it be to understand that? I do not understand why they do not understand how simple this issue is. The reason they do not understand it is they choose not to because they would rather play political games. They do not care about Canadians; they only care about the advancement of the Conservative Party. Shame on them.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, what I am hearing is a little like a five-year-old telling his mother that it is no big deal if he stole the piggy bank from the other guy, because three years ago the other guy threw sand at him in the park. Honestly, that is what it sounds like. It makes no sense.

I am going to remind my colleague of something. In 2010, former Prime Minister Harper fought a very similar battle to not release to the House documents on Afghan detainees that were classified as secret. He lost that battle. The Speaker at the time, Mr. Milliken, reminded everyone of the supremacy of the House of Commons over the government and asked it to produce all the documents. That is what the Speaker of the House has said this time.

Why are the Liberals stubbornly refusing to produce the documents when the House has demanded that they do so?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it would help a great deal if the members opposite would stand up and say, before they comment, that they disagree with the RCMP and Canada's Auditor General with respect to the Conservative tactic. They should at least be honest with Canadians and tell them that they disagree with the RCMP and the Auditor General, and that they do not care about the Charter of Rights and the Constitution. If you insist on the Conservative spin, what you are doing is walking on the rights and processes of individuals that have been well established. The RCMP and the Auditor General, which are both independent offices, have made that very clear. If the member would like, I can share the letter with her.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I just want to remind individuals to go through the Chair when having this debate.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the question is if there is wrongdoing, somebody needs to be punished. There are allegations, of course, but nothing has been proven.

I would say this to my hon. colleague. When the RCMP tells us that it does not need the material the Conservatives want produced and that it cannot use the material that would be provided if the Conservative motion were to succeed, what should we take from that on how best to proceed with the kind of investigation that people seem to be calling for?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is to allow our independent offices and agencies to do what they are supposed to do. We have an RCMP agency that is recognized around the world as second to, I would suggest, no other agency or law enforcement group. It knows its stuff. It knows what it is doing. I think Canadians have more confidence in the RCMP as an institution than they have in the Conservative Party, on this file at the very least. I am trying to be kind here.

I would suggest that we let individuals do the job they are supposed to be doing on this issue and allow more discussion in standing committees. That is why we have standing committees, to be able to go through the documents. That is where our Auditor General and the RCMP have made presentations. They provide all forms of opportunities to ensure accountability and transparency. I am a little concerned about the Bloc, but it is up to the Conservative Party, in particular, to stop playing political games at the cost of the interests of Canadians and start looking at ways in which we can support Canadians, not play games with them at a great expense.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of clarifications and then a simple question for the member opposite.

First of all, the Liberal government is pretending to care about people's charter rights, which would be new if it were believable. This is the government that has violated all of them, including freedom of expression and mobility rights. We can talk about the illegal emergency measures act, and we can go on and on. The member also alluded to the fact that there are no other Conservatives who want to speak to the motion, and that is why we have amendments and subamendments. I have not had a chance to speak to this privilege debate, and I would love to do so. Those are my clarifications.

The Auditor General says there are 186 conflicts of interest with the $400 million that was given to people's companies. The whistle-blower said there was criminality involved. If the Liberal government really believes there is nothing to see here, why will it not produce the papers?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has cooperated and produced the papers. They have been produced, just as Brian Mulroney and other levels of government have done in the past. The issue for the Conservatives is that they are saying there are redactions in the papers. That happens in government. Now the Conservatives have said that they will force those unredacted papers and go against what the RCMP and the Auditor General are saying. Why is that? It is because they want to play a political game of political cheap shots.

I look forward to hearing the member's comments. I would encourage every member in the opposition, when they stand up, to start their remarks by indicating that they do not support the recommendations of or the concerns raised by the RCMP and the Auditor General. Based on that, we can recognize that they do not support the Charter of Rights or our Constitution because, if they did, they would be listening to what those independent offices have to say. If they are not going to listen to what those independent offices have to say, then they cannot try to tell me that they are supporting the Charter of Rights. I will not buy that.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a number of my constituents have contacted me regarding this issue, and it is important that we address this series of troubling events, which have not only shaken the foundation of our parliamentary democracy, but also revealed a disturbing pattern of corruption within the Liberal government, highlighting a consistent disregard for the principles of transparency and accountability, which are the bedrock of our democratic system.

In 2018, going back that far, the SNC-Lavalin scandal is not just a tale of corporate misconduct, but a glaring example of political interference at the highest levels of our government. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, the Liberal government attempted to undermine the rule of law for political gain. The heart of this scandal lies in the actions of the Prime Minister and his office, which exerted undue pressure on then attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to intervene in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. This engineering giant faced serious charges of fraud and corruption, yet the Prime Minister sought to offer it a deferred prosecution agreement, effectively allowing it to escape full accountability. This move was not only unethical, but also a blatant attempt to protect Liberal interests at the expense of justice.

The fallout from this scandal was significant. It made Canada an ethical pariah in the eyes of its international peers. There are consequences, and it led to the resignation of key cabinet ministers. Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott could no longer stand by a government that prioritized political expediency over integrity. The Ethics Commissioner's report was damning, concluding that the Prime Minister had indeed violated the Conflict of Interest Act by improperly pressuring the attorney general. This is not the leadership Canadians deserve. It is our duty, as His Majesty's loyal opposition, to hold the Liberal government accountable and ensure that such abuses of power are never repeated.

The WE Charity scandal was another example of the Liberal government's pattern of corruption. The Liberals awarded a $912-million contract to WE Charity to administer a government program. It was later revealed that WE Charity had close ties to the Prime Minister and his family, as well as former finance minister Bill Morneau. The controversy led to multiple parliamentary committee investigations and significant political fallout, including Morneau's resignation. The scandal again damaged the public's trust in the Liberal government and led to calls for greater transparency and accountability in government contracting.

Next, we turn to the incident involving the Winnipeg lab. Here we witnessed a civil servant being called to the bar of the House for failing to produce documents. This extraordinary action highlighted the importance of parliamentary oversight and the need for civil servants to comply with requests for information. The subsequent election, unnecessarily called, to thwart this initiative further demonstrated the lengths to which some will go to avoid accountability.

More recently, we have seen the case of GC Strategies, where the refusal to answer questions at committee led to the principal of the company being brought to the bar and questioned by Parliament, despite attempts by some members, notably from the Liberal Party, to give this individual a pass due to the stress he had said this caused him. I am sure all grifters were awaiting the outcome of that. This incident serves as a reminder that no individual organization is above the scrutiny of the House. The Auditor General revealed that the development of the ArriveCAN app, initially estimated to cost around $80,000, ultimately ballooned to approximately $60 million. The exact final cost remains unclear due to poor record keeping, highlighting significant issues with financial management and transparency under these Liberals.

Now, we are confronted with the $400-million scandal involving a conflict of interest uncovered by the Auditor General. This scandal revolves around a now defunct foundation responsible for distributing federal funds for green technology projects. The Auditor General's report identified 186 conflicts of interest in contracts tied to the fund with money allegedly funnelled to companies in which board members had vested interests. The Speaker ruled that the government had not fully complied with an order from the House to provide documents related to the foundation. As a result, the Speaker demanded the production of these documents before any other business of the House could be undertaken. This decisive action underscores the seriousness of the allegations and the need for immediate transparency.

The Auditor General of Canada has found that the Prime Minister turned Sustainable Development Technology Canada into a slush fund for Liberal insiders. The Auditor General's findings are damning: $334 million, 82% of the funding approved by the board over a five-year period, was allocated to projects in which board members held a conflict of interest. An additional $59 million was given to projects outside the mandate of the foundation, breaking contribution agreements and conflict of interest laws. The Auditor General made it clear that the blame for this scandal falls on the industry minister who did not sufficiently monitor the contracts that were given to Liberal insiders. Where is the minister's accountability to the House?

These events remind Canadians that Liberals cannot be trusted with the public purse. There was ad scam, SNC-Lavalin, Winnipeg labs, WE Charity and arrive scam, and now there is the SDTC green slush fund. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars were funnelled to the Liberals and their friends.

Obstructing, refusing to co-operate, interference and manipulation are the hallmarks of gangsters and Liberals. We are faced with a governing body that is holding onto the last shred of power, refusing to turn over the documents that the Speaker has instructed them to turn over. These events, collectively, paint a troubling picture of a system in need of reform.

As representatives of the people, it is our duty to uphold these principles and to take decisive action when they are threatened. This is Parliament's role, and the flimsy excuse that it could violate charter rights is nonsense. Were that the actual case, the House would lose relevance. The country is going broke while Liberal insiders are stuffing taxpayer funds into their pockets, and the government is doing all it can to ensure Canadians do not see that.

I ask my colleagues in all parties if they really want Canadians to view their role here as elected parliamentarians as irrelevant. If some puppet in the Department of Justice, at the request of the Prime Minister, made parliamentarians' job irrelevant, we should stand up and say so. There should be no more. This is something we have to address.

Canada Carbon Rebate

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the past year, I have had the privilege of representing the people of Winnipeg South Centre.

One of the things I appreciate most about this job is the opportunity presented to us to receive feedback from constituents. The feedback I have received from those I represent in Winnipeg South Centre is loud and clear on the topic of climate change. They want action.

I have good news. The Canada carbon rebate will land in the bank accounts of Manitobans once again on October 15. On Tuesday, a Manitoba family of four will receive $300 because of that Canada carbon rebate. There is more. Despite Conservative opposition, we have doubled the top-up for families living in rural areas, retroactive to April, so it is a double-double rural top-up.

The best part is that because big polluters pay the most, the vast majority of Canadians receive more back through the Canada carbon rebate and those who pollute less save even more. This is fighting climate change and, for the first time in our history, Canada is on track to meet its climate goals.

World Mental Health Day

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today is World Mental Health Day, and it is my absolute pleasure to highlight the critical work of the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health, or CAMIMH, a coalition of 18 national mental health organizations representing Canadians with lived experience with mental illness and their care providers.

Each year, CAMIMH celebrates the champions of mental health, individuals who have made a powerful, positive impact on the mental health of Canadians. Earlier today, CAMIMH recognized this year's seven champions, including my good friend and colleague, my neighbour to the north, the member of Parliament for Edmonton Riverbend.

These seven extraordinary individuals have demonstrated unparalleled dedication to improving mental health and substance use care across Canada. Through their relentless efforts and innovative approaches, they have made a profound impact on the lives of countless Canadians.

I ask all my colleagues to join me in congratulating this year's champions and offering them our heartfelt gratitude for their enduring contribution to our great country.