Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today. I will not hide the fact that I wish we were talking about something else, like other bills already before the House. As my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert just pointed out, a lot of topics need our attention right now. We could be debating housing or the fight against climate change, which is something we do not talk about often enough in this place. We are in a climate crisis, and I do not think we are doing enough about it.
Just this morning, I read in a press review that the government is still investing in research for small modular reactors. However, we know very well that the best way forward would be to invest in renewable energy sources, such as wind, hydro and solar power, not in forms of energy that continue to harm the planet. I think it is a bit of a waste of time to debate matters like this.
I think that, so far, the House has been seized with this issue for roughly 15 hours. I am not saying that it is not important. Every question of privilege is important, usually. However, the Conservative Party seems to be using it as a tactic to obstruct the work of the House and the study of certain bills that have been introduced in the House. I share the same sense of unease as my colleague from Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert, who said earlier that there are so many other things we could be discussing. I want that to be perfectly clear to our constituents who may be watching our debates right now. They expect us, their elected members, to debate and pass bills on matters that concern them and that may help them in their daily lives. That is why I think this is a shame.
However, I will do the Conservatives the courtesy of playing along and talking about the issue that we have been seized with since Friday. I want to reiterate what was said by some of my colleagues and by the leader of the Bloc Québécois, who stated our position on this issue. I want to go over a few facts, if I may. I did say I feel as though we are wasting our time, but I want everyone to understand that the question of privilege that is before us today is legitimate. When Parliament orders the government to produce documents, the House has spoken and the government needs to respect that. What is the point of the House of Commons if its will is not respected? This is a legitimate question of privilege, and Parliament's authority to demand documents is clearly established.
I want to go over a few facts. On June 10, the House adopted a motion moved by the Conservative Party that ordered “the government, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) and the Auditor General of Canada each to deposit with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, within 14 days of the adoption of this order, the following documents” and that those documents be handed over to the RCMP.
A little while later, we realized that the documents in question had never been tabled in the House. In the opinion of the Bloc Québécois, and definitely in the opinion of the Conservative Party, the failure to table these documents is a breach of privilege. That is what I gathered from their question of privilege.
One thing, however, has not been mentioned enough. I think that the responsible thing to do is to exempt the Auditor General from being obliged to hand over the documents. After all, she is not the custodian of the government's documents. We would prefer to put more responsibility on the government and less on the Auditor General.
Then, on September 26, the Speaker of the House ruled that the question of privilege concerning these documents, about the government and Sustainable Development Technology Canada, was a prima facie case of privilege. That is why the Conservative Party now wants to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Like I said, it is a legitimate question, but let us not forget that this new agenda is considerably affecting the House's legislative agenda. I will say it again because I think it is important for people to understand this. I think it is a shame that this type of tactic is being used. I am afraid that the Conservative Party is taking advantage of this opportunity to monopolize the work of the House. That way, they can prove that Parliament has come to a standstill, that we are no longer able to move forward on issues, that nothing is working anymore and that an election must be called. Maybe that is part of their strategy.
I heard my Conservative colleague who spoke just before me say that the NDP and the Bloc Québécois need to join the Conservatives and call for a carbon tax election. We do not need to go very far from Parliament. We can just cross the river to Quebec and ask people there if they want a carbon tax election. I am not sure many people will say yes. That does not seem to be a priority for Quebeckers right now. Quebeckers have many other concerns besides that one. I am not saying that the Bloc Québécois is not ready for an election, but it should be about serious issues.
What the Bloc Québécois has done is give the government an opportunity to deliver for Quebeckers. The Prime Minister often says he wants to deliver for Canadians. We have given him an opportunity to truly deliver results, to make things better for Quebeckers. We have given him an opportunity to make things better not only for seniors in Quebec, but for seniors across Canada. If the government does not move forward on this file, we will have a good reason to bring it down, with the support of the other opposition parties, obviously. However, we are not going to bring down the government just because somebody woke up one morning and decided they wanted to become prime minister. That is not how it works. There need to be good reasons to bring down a government.
Let us come back to the issue before us. Parliament obviously has the power to compel documents from the government. That has been clearly established. The only limitation on the House's ability to compel the government to produce whatever information it deems necessary is the good judgment of the House, not the goodwill of the government. The government should have no reason not to produce the documents as demanded by the House. In June, the House was clear. It ordered the government to produce this series of documents. There may have been a lot of documents, and that may be what prevented the government from producing them, but the order was perfectly clear. The government did not respect it, and that is a breach of the House's privilege. That is what we need to address today. We want the Chair to examine this issue.
As I said earlier, the Bloc Québécois leader raised another point. The Conservative Party is taking advantage of this issue to go after the Auditor General. One thing must be perfectly clear: This is not about the Auditor General. She is a highly respected officer of Parliament. As elected officials, far from putting her between a rock and a hard place, our duty is to protect her from the government. The documents she had access to were meant for her performance audit and, we would point out, they belong to the government. The government's refusal to obey an order of the House has put the Auditor General in a difficult situation, to say the least. Obviously, the government is the one at fault. It is up to the government to hand over these documents to the House. The government alone, not the Auditor General, is the one violating the privilege of this House.
This is a serious issue, so we urge parliamentarians to treat it as such. I do not think that has been the guiding principle in the debates so far. In particular, I think it is important to avoid partisanship and sweeping accusations. We know that there may be good reason to think that Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, failed in its duty. There may be good reason to ask some serious questions about what went on. If there is any reason to believe that wrongdoing has occurred, then it should be investigated. At that point, it is not up to us to decide whether to move forward on this issue. If the RCMP wants to receive documents, great. It may not need the documents to conduct this type of investigation. When there is evidence of corruption, when it looks like taxpayers' money has been used dishonestly, this obviously needs to be investigated.
There is not much more to say on this subject. However, I can provide more detail about the mandate of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC.
It is an independent foundation created in 2001. Its mission is to support the growth and development of pre-commercial clean technology companies. It reports to the minister responsible for Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. Whistle-blowers started sounding the alarm in November 2022. They had concerns about how the foundation was managing public funds and human resources. They approached the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, which advised them to contact the Privy Council Office.
The Privy Council Office then received a 300-page document from the whistle-blower group, laying out allegations dating back to February 2022. I want to go over a few dates. In October 2023, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry stated that he was going to commission the firm Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton to prepare a fact-finding report.
The fact-finding report identified a number of instances in which SDTC was not in full compliance with the contribution agreement made with the Department of Industry. As a result, the department sent SDTC an action plan to address the issues identified in the report and indicated that the action plan needed to be implemented by December 31, 2023. The department also requested the suspension of funding for all new projects until the action plan was implemented.
On November 1, 2023, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada announced that it would be conducting an audit on how SDTC was financing sustainable development technologies within the Department of Industry's portfolio. The Auditor General published that audit on June 4.
In short, here is what we learned from the Auditor General's report. The Auditor General found that there were serious governance issues with the fund. That was quite clear. The main problems were the mismanagement of conflicts of interest and a lack of clarity surrounding the criteria for awarding grants. As I was awkwardly trying to say earlier, we can see that there has been wrongdoing here. The responsible thing to do is to get to the bottom of things.
That said, the issue that concerns us now is as follows: When Parliament is seized of a matter like this and asks for documents to be tabled, the least the government can do is respect the will of the House and table those documents. It does not get any simpler than that.
