Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 27th, 2024

[An hon. member]

Frankie?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I'm sorry.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Well, Mr.—

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I get Francis, Frankie and Frank.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Drouin was not at the table, so I recognized Mr. Nater.

Mr. Nater, you have the floor, please.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to share a few thoughts on this guillotine motion from the Liberal Party. That is exactly what this is. It's a guillotine motion, a term that's often used in Westminster for the shutting down of debate, the shutting down of the opportunity to study something. That is exactly what this guillotine motion does. It will prevent this committee.... I'm going to quote from the actual motion, “That no more meetings be conducted on Report 6, Sustainable Development Technology Canada.” We all know this fund as the green slush fund. That is exactly what this motion does. It's an attempt by the Liberal Party to once again prevent Canadians and this committee from getting to the bottom of the absolutely terrible conduct of the Sustainable Development Technology Canada board and its entities.

The fact that we still don't have answers from SDTC itself, from the ministers responsible, from the ministers implicated in this.... We will remember, as well, that not only is there a minister responsible for this program but that there's also a minister who's complicit and involved in this program in terms of financing and getting funding into the hands of a company in which he has a direct financial interest. However, that's exactly what this motion tries to do.

I don't think anyone is surprised that what's happening here is reflective of the Liberal actions in the House of Commons as well. What we're seeing there are constant attempts by the Liberal Party to try to sweep this issue under the rug to prevent Canadians from seeing how the depths of the corruption and the issues within this institution really are.

Four hundred million taxpayer dollars went into this entity. That's $400 million that I know each and every Canadian out there could have seen better dealt with than going to friends and acquaintances of these Liberal-appointed directors.

I don't think it's lost on anyone that when we did have former Liberal minister Bains at this committee twice on this matter, we still failed to get actual answers on how this was being undertaken. It's ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous.

I would be remiss if I didn't point it out, as well.... I can only say so much because we can't talk about what happened in camera, but I can talk about the fact that this committee did go in camera earlier this week so that Canadians would be prevented from seeing the actual debate on a previous version of this. It's rather convenient for the Liberal Party that they wish—

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

How convenient for you guys—

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

How convenient for the Liberal Party that they're preventing—

I'm being heckled by Ms. Khalid, but I don't think she should be one who's talking about in camera meetings, given concerns that have been raised in the past.

This is just par for the course when it comes to the Liberals. They simply want to ensure that Canadians don't have the answers and that these Liberal friends and acquaintances aren't held to account.

Let's remember how last June the majority of the House of Commons voted to require that documents be provided to the law clerk unredacted and that those then be referred to the RCMP. What we've seen over the last two months is the fact that the Liberals did not comply. The Liberal Speaker of the House himself ruled that this was a contempt of the House of Commons. The Liberal Speaker of the House of Commons ruled that the government failed to comply with a legitimate order of the House, and it was an order. It wasn't a “Well, if you have time, if you wouldn't mind....” It was an order of the House of Commons, and the House of Commons isn't the Liberal Party. The House of Commons is a majority of members present. I would note that—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Can you say that again?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I would say, for the benefit of Mr. Perkins, that the House of Commons is not the Liberal Party.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Wow, that will come as a shock.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I know that is a shock. Certain Liberals think that Canada and the Liberal Party are one and the same, but I think we know very well that the Liberal Party of this incarnation is certainly not the Liberal Party of the past, and it is certainly not a Liberal Party that Canadians have any trust in or respect for. That is one of the reasons that the Canadians I talk to are strongly demanding an election, so they can have the chance to show their real points of view on the Liberal Party and on where they are with this.

I don't think I need to talk too long on this matter, but if we want to be honest—and we always like to look for the good in a motion—there's a small, teeny-tiny part of this motion that sounds reasonable, which is that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry appear before this committee. That's reasonable. Let's make sure that part is kept in because we do need to hear from the minister responsible for this program.

That is the basis of ministerial responsibility. A minister is responsible for the activities in his or her department. Ministers are responsible for those issues and are then accountable to the House of Commons. They are accountable to the people's representatives, the members of Parliament who sit around this table and the members of Parliament who collectively sit in the House of Commons. That's how it works, as my friend Mr. Perkins so kindly pointed out, and there is a degree of responsibility that must be undertaken.

It's interesting because, if we look back at what happened when the Liberals were first elected, there was a very strong indication that they would be responsible to Parliament and that they would undertake visits to committees, but that obviously hasn't happened.

Therefore, I would offer a simple amendment to this motion, and I think it ought to be accepted because it is reasonable. I would move that the motion be amended by deleting parts (b) and (c). I can pause there.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

I'm just going to pause for a few seconds.

Mr. Nater, your amendment is in order.

Colleagues, the amendment is to delete (b) and (c).

Would you like to continue speaking to this, or would you like to hand it off to one of your colleagues?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I don't think I need to say any more than that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

All right.

I'm looking for a speaking list for the amendment.

I have Mr. Brock and then Mr. Drouin.

Mr. Brock, you have the floor.

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

Clearly, I will support my colleague Mr. Nater on the proposed amendment, because it does away with the whole concept—I'm glad Mr. Nater used the concept appropriately—of a guillotine motion. That's precisely what it does. Are we surprised? Should Canadians be surprised about yet another scandal rocking the Justin Trudeau government, after nine years of abject failure in delivering results, broken promise after promise—of transparency, accountability and responsibility, which are completely out the window—and actions, like those of my colleague Monsieur Drouin, to shut this completely down and not call out all the bad actors? Where have we heard that before—“bad actors”?

We heard that from Justin Trudeau. Justin Trudeau and various ministers have always championed how those responsible for misusing taxpayer dollars, not following the rules and padding their own pockets ought to be held responsible. Well, no one has been charged yet. We have all of these RCMP investigations, but it's never Justin Trudeau's fault. It's never a minister's fault. I'm glad to hear that Minister Champagne is part of the Liberals' motion. He's certainly still part of our amendment to the motion, because he has a significant amount of answering to do.

He's been accused not once but up to three times publicly, in the press, by Witness 1, who testified here on a couple of occasions. I apologize if my math is wrong. I'm not a sitting member of PACP, but I have participated from time to time over the last year and a half, since this scandal has been percolating. He publicly called out Champagne for lying to committee. That is a serious allegation that warrants a full investigation by this committee. There are potentially not only civil but also criminal consequences if it's proven to be accurate that he deliberately misled committee. The evidence, according to the whistle-blower, is that he took concrete, active steps to soften or water down the initial RCGT report, that he lied to Canadians both inside and outside the House, and that he didn't know about the full extent of the shenanigans going on at this green slush fund until September, when the evidence proves that, as early as June of the same year, he was briefed by the deputy minister.

We had Assistant Deputy Minister McConnachie here in the committee room. Although he did his best to distance himself from his taped conversation with the whistle-blower.... You know, in my old career, we used to always rely on the best evidence. The best evidence rule is maintained not only in civil but also criminal proceedings. You don't get much better evidence than a taped conversation. The conversation wasn't softened. It wasn't speculative. He claims he was set up, which is complete garbage. That, in and of itself, is an absolute lie. He laid bare his true, unvarnished thoughts on how completely disgusted he was by the shenanigans going on at this billion-dollar slush fund. These are taxpayer funds, when we have families struggling to feed themselves, house themselves and clothe themselves. They are lining up at food banks and—

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Yes, Mr. Drouin.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I hear Mr. Brock's enthusiasm and hope he's going to support us on the GST holiday if he wants to provide relief to families.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Drouin. I appreciate it.

Mr. Brock, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I were to poll all the members at this table, I think we would probably be unanimous that all of us have toured and visited and heard from our local executive directors of our food banks. What's sad about this scandal is that people who are actually utilizing food banks across this country were once the same individuals who contributed money and food. This is what has happened to Canadians under Justin Trudeau when you have absolutely no regard and no respect for the Canadian taxpayer.

I started off my comments by talking about this being probably the most predominant and most substantial scandal that is rocking this country right now. If this isn't proof positive that we need a carbon tax election to get Justin Trudeau the hell out of Ottawa, then I don't know what is.

That's what Canadians want. The polls clearly establish that. He has lost his moral authority to govern this country.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Brock, I would urge and advise you just to watch your language. This is just a flare on that, please.

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

What did I say that was offensive, Mr. Chair?