Debates of Oct. 1st, 2024

Opposition Motion—Request for a Royal Recommendation for Bill C‑319

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a whole lot of smart things to say. I wonder what the minister would say if there were no dental care. The Liberals voted against dental care in the last election. We forced them to implement it. Now, 200,000 Quebeckers are reaping the benefits thanks to the work of the NDP.

I would like to hear the minister say one thing. I would like him to say “thank you”.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, obviously, I thank all members of the House who voted for progressive measures, including measures to assist seniors. As Minister of Labour and Seniors, I am delighted every time a member, like my colleague here, rises to support the initiatives we are able to put in place to help seniors in Canada and Quebec.

What bothers me, as I said, is the cynicism and opportunism of a political party that wants Quebec to separate and that comes to the House and systematically votes against any assistance for seniors. It does so in the hope that it will lead to the Conservatives being elected, which would lay the groundwork for its ultimate plan, which in turn would weaken old age security for Quebeckers. That is the real story behind today. That is what Canadians and Quebeckers need to focus on. How can a party be so cynical and opportunistic? Shame on the Bloc Québécois.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, what does the minister have to say to the organizations in Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation that welcomed me this summer and that, without knowing why I was coming to see them, told me that they had told their member of Parliament that the idea of creating an OAS loophole made no sense? What does he have to say to the people from the Association québécoise des retraité(e)s des secteurs public et parapublic en Outaouais and to the president of FADOQ, who lives in the region? They were here today and heard everything he said.

I think they completely agree, because they see the work of the Bloc Québécois. What does the minister have to say to the people and organizations in the Sherbrooke region who welcomed me and told me that it made no sense to increase pensions only for people aged 75 and over?

The minister says that he is out listening to the community. I was too in the Outaouais region. Clearly, we were the ones who had the support today on Parliament Hill. There were 200 people there, and I encourage people to sign the petition between now and October 3.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, let us talk about members. In the riding of Shefford, we used to have a member who supported organizations and the idea of dental care for the 14,000 or so people who benefit from it in that riding alone. That member voted against it.

If she wants to help Quebec seniors, even just a little, all she has to do is call the Quebec government and convince it to give the green light so that we can fund the wonderful projects in Quebec ridings through the age well at home program—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say that I will be sharing my time with my dear colleague, the member for Montcalm.

In light of what I just heard from the recently appointed Minister of Labour and Seniors, I would appreciate it if he could stay a few minutes. I might get angry; I might get indignant. At the same time, I am worried. I think our minister is in a very vulnerable state. As a nurse by profession, I think he has a bit of a health problem, given the speech he just made. His whole speech worried me, because it was full of untruths, lies and partisanship the likes of which I have never heard before. That reminds me, we still have not received his new mandate letter. I am guessing that the speech he delivered today was part of it. He must be a good ambassador for the inertia of the government, his government, when it comes to federal social policies and programs. It is rare that we have the opportunity to talk about exclusively federal social programs that we are asking to be strengthened.

Usually, as we just heard and as we hear in the answers we are given during question period, the government members just talk about their exploits implementing programs that have nothing to do with the federal government, but rather are the responsibility of the provinces. Take the dental care program, for example. The Bloc Québécois is being accused of being against dental care. That is not true. For seniors and young people alike, a dental care program is a good idea. We voted against the bill not because we are against dental care, but because it was another example of crass interference in a provincial jurisdiction. This program is going to cost $2 billion and be administered by private insurance companies, while Quebec's dental care program is administered by a public system. That is the Liberal government's hypocrisy, in the falsehoods it denounces. That is why we stand firm.

There is one thing to take away from today's debate on our bill, which has been defended with such passionate determination by my colleague, the member for Shefford, and has the support of my political party and all the seniors we met with in the field. The one thing to remember is that we demand fair treatment. Of course, the issue concerns dignity, but fair treatment is also at stake.

The equation is simple. The federal government introduced a program in the early 1900s called the old age security pension. It was a universal pension, with certain conditions, that started at age 65. The plan was intended for all seniors aged 65 or over, for whom OAS was viewed as a social safety net. In fact, it was praised as an important social policy at the time. Where does Canada stand today as far as the overall program goes? Canada ranks 13th in the OECD.

Restoring fairness is the purpose of our bill and the reason we are requesting a royal recommendation. What the government did for the first time ever was to make a distinction between people aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over, in a universal plan that should apply to everyone.

That is the gap we want to correct with Bill C-319. As I said in another speech, seniors are not all facing the same situation. People aged 80 and over may be living a different reality from those aged 75 and over or from those aged 70 to 75. That is not the real issue here. The question is whether the federal government believes that there are now two OAS plans: one for seniors aged 65 to 74 and one for seniors aged 75 and over.

That is nonsense because it is a question of equity. In committee, when we talked about OAS, I heard people say that seniors 65 and up have money while those 75 and up have less. People seem to lose sight of the fact that as of age 65, many seniors, including 30% or more in Quebec, start living on a fixed income. For many seniors, that is their only income. For many people in both Quebec and Canada, single women in particular, OAS provides an income that barely allows them to live in dignity. It is their only income. To cut them off from an increase is to make them poorer and even more insecure. It is also to ignore the fact that if we want to improve seniors' situation and quality of life, then we need to act now.

If we support an increase in OAS as of age 65 that allows for an adequate standard of living, as the bill proposes, we will improve these seniors' quality of life and, at the same time, the quality of life and living conditions of people 75 and up. The equation is simple. As my colleague said, there is no evidence proving that age-based discrimination in the application of a universal system will make the government understand how poor and vulnerable our seniors are.

During question period, we ran out of ways to say that the cost of living is the same whether one is an 80-year-old senior or a 65-year-old living on a fixed income like old age security. Many people are struggling to pay for clothing, housing and food, with a bit left over for leisure activities. They are avoiding that, because they do not have the money. For 10 years of their lives, they will be worried because they may have had a little nest egg, but no private plan or supplementary pension plan. They only get old age security. It is unfair to say that they can go back to work to get by, instead of saying that, out of fairness, old age security will be increased for everyone, as it should be, as it was intended to be, which would be the fair approach. A number of witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to talk about this. The Liberal government members on that committee unanimously supported this bill.

I hope that the answer we heard today from the Minister of Labour and Seniors is not the government's answer. It is a matter of fairness. There is still time for the government to be on the right side of history rather than the wrong side of history.

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

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I am going to turn and face my Bloc Québécois colleagues. The member for Thérèse-De Blainville has highlighted the distressing reality of this government. This is a government that prides itself on wanting to help seniors, when in fact it has divided seniors into two categories: those aged 65 to 74, and those aged 75 and over. Frankly, I never saw this coming. I do not understand how a government can divide seniors into two classes and help some more than others. That is outrageous.

Let us imagine that this government votes in favour of the Bloc Québécois motion to make itself look good. Nothing would change, because the real game is in the Senate. Theoretically, the federal government has no power over the Senate.

I have a fundamental question for the Bloc Québécois. I see my Bloc Québécois colleague who has been here for nine years. Some have been here for five years. Day after day, these people see what the government is doing. How can proud Quebeckers, Bloc members, sovereignists still have confidence in this inflationist, centralizing, spendthrift government, which cannot seem to mind its own business when it comes to provincial jurisdictions?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has confidence in its political party. The Bloc Québécois has confidence in its political agenda and in the people it represents.

The government definitely failed to sow division among seniors. Even people aged 75 and over tell us that what the government did is not right. There is even solidarity among seniors. They want nothing to do with a government of any stripe that, for the sake of its political agenda, wants to deprive them of an OAS pension that would afford them a life lived with dignity.

That is the pride of the Bloc Québécois, and that is our political agenda.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have sat with my friend and colleague on HUMA for eight or nine years now, and we have done some wonderful work together.

One of the first things our government did was to raise the GIS by 10% for low-income seniors, and we are certainly a friend of seniors. The rationale behind our 10% raise for those over 74 was obviously because seniors are living longer, their money is running out and they have more health needs.

The member opposite gave a great speech, and I do not disagree with it, but does she not recognize why we did what we did to support seniors who are over 74 years old?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, usually I really try to understand, but this time I did not understand a thing.

I did not understand anything at any stage when we discussed the issue. No one provided any evidence that would have allowed me to understand the age discrimination when it comes to OAS. I get the impression that it is for economic reasons. It is unbelievable. It would cost $3 billion a year to meet the needs of people with fixed incomes and bills to pay. We must not think of it as an expenditure. In fact, it is an investment. I will never understand—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Victoria.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are hearing, on National Seniors Day, the Liberals say they are friends to seniors while they are saying no to increasing the amount that pensioners aged 65 and older would get. It has been shown that, over the next five years, as the member mentioned, it would cost $16 billion. That is half of what the Trans Mountain pipeline cost.

Could the member reflect on how the Liberals keep saying yes to building pipelines that benefit oil sands CEOs but no to seniors who are struggling right now with the cost of living?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right, that question continues to be relevant. The oil companies are getting $82 billion in subsidies. My colleague talked about a pipeline. These are political choices and decisions.

What we want is for the government to choose the right policy, which is to invest in these programs, to invest in seniors and to invest in fairness for those who receive OAS benefits—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Montcalm.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have rarely heard so many ridiculous speeches in the House. Quite frankly, this minister's constituents deserve better. I was wondering why there were problems between the federal government and Quebec regarding meals on wheels, when there were never any issues before this minister came along. I can see that he is making the situation a lot worse with his partisanship. I am talking about interference.

The minister is saying that it is appalling that the Bloc Québécois is plotting to put the Conservatives in power in order to achieve sovereignty. It seems as though the minister has not reviewed the history of Canada and Quebec. By definition, it is the current Liberal government that has implemented programs that interfere in provincial jurisdiction in a way that we have not seen in a very long time.

Take the dental insurance program. We support the idea of dental insurance for seniors. Why did the government not engage in discussions before announcing it? They scribbled it on the back of a napkin to keep themselves in power until 2025. Instead of immediately taking partisan action to stay in power as long as possible—since the polls show that things are not going well—they should have sat down with a province like Quebec. Quebec runs a program that does not cover seniors, but it did cover a certain number of people and was administered by a public agency, the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec, or RAMQ. Now, they are scribbling it on the back of a napkin. Quebec is asking for money to improve its dental insurance program. Seniors would be covered, but we would not have to pay $2 billion in administrative costs to a private company. How can the government take pride in setting up a so-called public dental care program when it is forking over $2 billion to a private company? Not to mention all the problems dentists have had. We have heard dentists say that it does not make sense, that they do not even know if they will be reimbursed. They see all these patients and then get denied by Sun Life.

In short, it is nonsense to claim that the Bloc Québécois is here strictly for its political purposes to stir up trouble. When I arrived in the House in 2015, we called for the GIS to be automatically given to people who, when they filed their tax returns, were eligible for it. Before that, according to the statistics we commissioned, there were a lot of people who were entitled to it, but the Canadian government did not tell them. People had to apply. That was when Minister Morneau, the finance minister at the time, agreed to put it in place, but in 2018. It was the Bloc Québécois that fought for the GIS in the early 2000s, and yet, this program falls strictly under federal jurisdiction.

Now we are being told that it is going to cost far too much. We are talking about $3 billion to make a federal program fair for seniors. There is no money for that, we are told. On the other hand, we had money for Trans Mountain, to export oil, to make oil companies richer. We had $34 billion. The government also had $83 billion to give tax credits to the five big oil companies, which raked in $220 billion in profits. I would add to that $2 billion in administrative costs.

It is not at all a matter of cost. It is about priorities. The government interfered in programs with costly redundant structures. It now has to be careful because that will come back to haunt them.

The government had no business getting involved in that. If it wanted to get involved, it should have sat down with the Government of Quebec and respected the will of the Quebec National Assembly. That is also what we represent in the House. The government should have created something that would make sense, at a lower cost, and that would cover everyone.

When the Bloc Québécois voted against this program, it voted with the unanimous support of the National Assembly. When the minister lectures us about being hypocrites, it should come as no surprise that he does not have good relations with Quebec and the Government of Quebec. In fact, it has such poor relations with the Government of Quebec that the Premier of Quebec is meddling in federal elections. However, every time we ask a question in the House, the Minister of Health or the Minister of Justice rises to tell us that the government has a very good relationship with the Government of Quebec and the National Assembly.

We tabled all sorts of motions. One of them said that the National Assembly was opposed to pharmacare. Quebec wants the money, with full compensation, to manage its own programs. When a minister stands up and tells me that we are against seniors and that we are opportunists because the government is in a minority Parliament, this is ridiculous. Not only is it ridiculous, but it insults the intelligence of our seniors.

My colleague from Shefford has done extraordinary work on this issue. Now the minister is saying that all the groups that support us across Quebec and Canada do not know what they are talking about, that he knows better than they do what is good for them, and that he does not have the money for it. He tells them to look at everything the government has already done. If everything this government has already done was really enough, I do not think that so many seniors who are currently living below or just above the poverty line would support this bill.

When seniors can have a bit left over in addition to surviving, they do not get as sick. Ultimately, health care costs less. It is cost-effective for everyone, because these people do not have a nest egg. They are going to spend that money. From an economic point of view, what the Liberals are thinking does not make any sense. However, having the Minister of Labour and Seniors speak and listening to this government's response, I understand very well that our support for this government is over. We have never had—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It being 5:27 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 2, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Alleged Failure of Witness to Respond to Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on September 17, 2024, by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes on the alleged failure of a witness to provide information to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

In his intervention, the member referred to events described in the 12th report of the committee, presented to the House earlier that day. The report alleged that a witness, Mr. Stephen Anderson, failed to answer questions and refused to produce specific documents ordered by the committee following the adoption of two distinct motions. Specifically, Mr. Anderson repeatedly refused to provide the name of an individual he had referred to in his testimony.

The member made reference to a question of privilege he raised on March 20, 2024, concerning the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates and the subsequent finding of a prima facie case of privilege, noting its similarities with the current situation. He added that this incident goes further. In addition to failing to respond to questions, Mr. Anderson also disregarded orders of the committee for the production of documents. The member argued the current situation also constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House.

In reviewing this matter, the Chair took into consideration the arguments made by the member for Hamilton Centre, who supported the assertions made by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

The Chair also considered carefully the committee's report. After presenting the sequence of events and describing the attempts made to receive the requested information, it concludes with, and I quote, “having not received the documents requested from the witness, and, most significantly, the name referenced during the committee meeting of Wednesday, July 17, 2024, continuing to be withheld, [the] committee feels it is their duty to place these matters before the House at this time so that the House may take such measures as it deems appropriate.”

The Chair notes that two privileges enjoyed by committees have allegedly been breached. These are rights fundamental to the proper functioning of Parliament.

With regard to answering questions put by members of a committee, it is worth reiterating that witnesses are obliged to provide answers to questions from the committee. According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 1081, “refusal to answer questions or failure to reply truthfully may give rise to a charge of contempt of the House, whether the witness has been sworn in or not.”

In terms of ordering the productions of documents, Standing Order 108(1)(a) delegates this power from the House to its committees. Indeed, as Speaker Milliken stated in a ruling from March 9, 2011, at page 8841 of the Debates, and I quote, “the power of committees of the House to order papers is indistinguishable from that of the House.”

In light of the above and given the importance of protecting the powers accorded to the House to fulfill its duties, the Chair finds the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege.

Accordingly, I would now invite the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes to move his motion.

Request for Witness to Attend at the Bar of the House

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the House, having considered the unanimous views of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, expressed in its 12th Report, find Stephen Anderson to be in contempt for his failure to provide the information which the Committee had ordered him to produce and, accordingly, order him to attend at the Bar of this House, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on the next Wednesday the House sits which is at least one week following the adoption of this Order, for the purposes of

(a) receiving an admonishment delivered by the Speaker;

(b) delivering up the records referred to in the 12th Report;

(c) providing responses to the questions referred to in the 12th Report; and

(d) responding to supplementary questions arising from his responses to the questions referred to in the 12th Report,

provided that

(e) any records which Mr. Anderson produces shall stand referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics;

(f) the questioning shall be governed by the provisions of subparagraphs (b)(iv) and (v) of the Order adopted on April 8, 2024, concerning the appearance at the Bar of Kristian Firth, except that references to “Mr. Firth” be read as “Mr. Anderson”; and

(g) it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to consider the records produced by Mr. Anderson and his testimony at the Bar of the House and, if necessary, recommend further action.

Here we go again. We are here in this place dealing with another example of Liberals who do not seem to understand that their job is to represent Canadians and not to represent the best interests of their best friends and their business partners. Of course, I am talking about the saga of the “other Randy”.

We do not know who the other Randy is. That is one of the main reasons why we find ourselves here today; it is one of the questions that the witness, Mr. Anderson, refused to answer at committee when he had an obligation to do so. Why do we need to know who the other Randy is? At the heart of it is the Liberal minister from Edmonton, who was found out to own 50% of a business while he was serving in the cabinet. It was believed that he was directing the operations of that company.

The minister said, of course, that it is another Randy. We heard from members of the Liberal caucus that perhaps it was “Randeep”. We heard from the witness, Mr. Anderson, that he could tell us only if we held an in camera meeting, a private meeting of the ethics committee, so that he could reveal it to us. The committee rejected that. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If the Liberals have nothing to hide, they should show us who the other Randy is.

It gets worse. In the multiple appearances at committee, of witnesses on the strange story of the Liberal minister from Edmonton and his business dealings, we learned of course that the NDP-Liberal government did award a contract to the Liberal minister's business while he was serving in cabinet. That is outrageous. Of course, it is not allowed under the conflict of interest regime we have in this country. Said another way, it is illegal.

We heard from the minister, when he first appeared at committee, that he had not been in touch with his business partner, Mr. Anderson, in 2022. He was explicit that he had not. The thing about the company and about everyone who seems to be involved in it is that it is pretty sketchy. That sketchy company is involved in a massive lawsuit that alleges fraud of half a million dollars. An unexplained but suspicious warehouse fire targeted only the inventory at the Liberal minister's company's warehouse. Through the legal system, we are learning, through the disclosures, that there was in fact contact, which is in direct contradiction to what that Liberal minister said.

The minister said that he had not talked to his business partner in 2022. He then had his ministry talk to the media and say that it was impossible for the minister to have communicated with Mr. Anderson on the days in question, when he referenced Randy nine times in text messages. Mr. Anderson claimed, obviously not believably, that these were nine autocorrects, though he could not tell us what was being autocorrected. The recipient of the messages of course never challenged him on who the other Randy was, because he was always represented as the business partner, the individual who owned a 50% share in the business, the Liberal minister from Edmonton.

The minister's staff said that he could not have communicated, because he was in cabinet; he was locked up. He flew into Vancouver, and before he got there, they must have taken his phone and put it in a box, and he did not get it back for weeks. He did not talk to anybody. They said it was impossible.

However, we then demanded his phone records. He provided them for only one phone. We know he has another one, so we had to issue another demand for phone records and text messages. Guess what we found out: While the Liberal minister's business partner was telling the victims of the fraud worth about $500,000 and saying that Randy was in Vancouver and needed answers, the minister from Edmonton was in Vancouver at that time. Although his office said that he could not get the messages, there is testimony from the last time that he testified at committee.

I want to reference a story from Blacklock's Reporter from Friday, September 20, titled “Minister Changes His Story”. It says that the minister admitted to being in both a text message exchange and a phone call with his business partner during the 2022 retreat. What changed? What is it called when someone says something that they know is not true?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard people say that it makes them want to cry. It certainly does.

A minister from the NDP-Liberal government came to committee, a minister of the Crown who should be able to put their personal interests aside. They legally have to, but we see that has not been the case for the minister. To save his own skin, he came to committee and said something that we now have proven to be not true, and he later admitted it at committee.

Was the minister telling the truth the first time, or was he telling the truth the second time? He was telling the truth when he got caught having not told the truth. That is the material fact of the matter. This is what we are dealing with. His business partner defied multipartisan efforts to tell the truth. He refused.

What are they trying to hide in this company? The Liberal minister from Edmonton's business partner put up a handful of Porsches and Land Rovers as collateral in the hours before they incorporated the business together, but the Liberal minister said he had no idea. That seems as unbelievable as pretty much everything the minister said at committee, because we now have the receipts and the records to show that what he said was not true.

We cannot believe what he is saying, which is very often the case. It has been a case of serial breaking of ethics laws by the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet. Now there is a minister who is just saying one thing when another is the truth. This is not acceptable in a parliamentary committee. It is contemptuous in and of itself. In a courtroom, it is perjury. Had the minister been asked to swear an oath, it would be perjury. Perjury in this country is punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

There is a common-sense Conservative private member's bill that will come before the House when we are done dealing with all the questions of privilege that arise from the broken government after its nine years. The bill will deal with fines of $50,000 for contempt and a mandatory six months in prison for perjury before a House of Parliament. Is it not about time we had real consequences?

We are going to have to have Mr. Anderson come before the bar. Members across party lines, like the report, came out of committee recognizing the refusal of the witness to answer the questions. All members of the House should be in lockstep in the belief that it is unacceptable to come before a parliamentary committee and refuse to provide the answers requested, very reasonable answers.

The whole issue at the committee hinges on who Randy is. One name was the hallmark ask for the committee. The individual refused to provide it, along with a host of text message records and phone records he refused to provide, just like his business partner, the Liberal minister, refused to provide the full material requested by the committee and had to be asked for it multiple times.

The Ethics Commissioner took a preliminary look at it and said that he did not think there was anything there, but then some of the half-truths of the minister were exposed and the Ethics Commissioner had to take another look at it. However, with the information he had, he did not proceed with a finding against the Liberal minister.

The Liberals said that he did not do anything wrong, that the Ethics Commissioner is not launching an investigation and finding him to have broken the law, like the Prime Minister has twice, or the public safety minister, the former finance minister or the trade minister. It is “or, or, or” with the Liberal benches.

The Ethics Commissioner had to look at it again, but he still does not have all the information. He does not have the power to order the minister to produce it; he is just asking him. Conservatives asked the minister, and he did not give us all the information. It is a $500,000 fraud. Contracts were being given to a member of cabinet.

At the same time, the minister had his name listed in the corporate registry for a lobbying firm. It got left on there by accident, he said, and then he got paid by the lobbying firm while he was sitting as a minister. It was a deferred payment, he swears. Does he swear like he did when he said he did not talk to Mr. Anderson in 2022 but now we have the receipts that show that he did? It is highly suspicious. What is going on?

The Liberals do not see the forest for the trees. Today there was a common-sense Conservative motion recognizing that after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, with taxes up, costs up and crime up, its time is up. Why is there no government legislation on the floor of the House? The Liberals are trying to get as many opposition days out of the way as they can, and now they are stuck dealing with matters that stem from corruption, like the matter that is going to be dealt with tomorrow in the House, the billion-dollar green slush fund. The government is refusing an order of Canadians to produce the information.

The government House leader, in the past week, produced a perfect example for the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics' study on misinformation and disinformation. It was government disinformation produced, with taxpayer-funded resources, by the Liberal House leader. She spun a tale about Canadians' rights being trampled on because a majority of members of the House, all democratically elected, ordered the production of documents from the government about its corruption. However, Liberals say it is an erosion of Canadians' rights that is too great to bear.

The government is so terrified that documents about its corruption are going to be turned over to the RCMP for the RCMP just to consider. The RCMP is going to look at them. It does not have to investigate. It has independence and can make that decision.

The Liberals do not even want the Mounties to see the documents, because we know there have been examples before where the Liberal Prime Minister invoked cabinet confidence to block documents from being released to the RCMP in matters concerning criminal allegations against the Liberal Prime Minister. However, he blocked them. He used cabinet confidence, whose purpose is not to provide a get-out-of-jail-free card for the Prime Minister, but that is what the Liberals used it for.

What is the billion-dollar green slush fund for which the Liberals do not want documents going to the law clerk and the RCMP? The Prime Minister appointed his friend Annette Verschuren, who, like the Prime Minister, was found guilty of breaking ethics laws, padding her pockets and Liberal insiders' pockets with hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is what this is all about.

Sustainable Technologies Canada is what it was called at its inception. Of course, in 2017, after Conservatives had left office, it received a clean bill of health from Canada's Auditor General. Not so after a couple of years of the self-interested economic vandals who occupy the government benches. They stacked the board, they lined their pockets and now they are trying to cover it up, blatantly disobeying an order of Canada's Parliament. What is the common theme here? It is a disregard by the Liberals for basic honesty, for transparency, for the rule of law and for democracy. That is their legacy.

When we talk about time being up after nine years, this is what we are talking about. There are things we are allowed to say, and there are things we are not allowed to say. Saying a minister lied is not something we are allowed to do, but—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. So the member is aware, and I know he is, we cannot do something indirectly that we are not supposed to do directly. The implication is that the member opposite is playing on words, I suspect, Mr. Speaker, if you review what he just said.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I apologize. I hope I will get it better next time; I was not paying attention.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Doth thou protest too much, Colleague?

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, in time we will find out, because sunlight is the best disinfectant. My goodness, we need a lot of disinfectant on the opposite side. We are going to tirelessly pursue every scandal. We are going to tirelessly pursue every dollar they have misspent, misappropriated or overseen the theft of.

Can the members imagine that I have been talking for more than 15 minutes about government corruption and I have not even been able to get to the $60-million arrive scam? I have not talked about the billion dollars to the Kielburgers, the Liberals' friends at the WE organization; the now public safety minister, former fisheries minister, giving lucrative contracts to his family members in the clam scam; or former finance minister Mr. Morneau making sure the WE organization got a contract with the Liberals when his children were working there, to help enrich them. These guys, the Liberals, have not found a Canadian taxpayer dollar that they have not promised to one of their buddies before taking it out of the jeans of the person who earned it.

We have the business partner of a sitting cabinet minister who comes before committee and conducts himself in a way that the Speaker has ruled represents a prima facie case of privilege. We have a Liberal cabinet minister from Edmonton who comes to committee and says one thing and then, when we show him the receipts of what actually happened, says the other thing is true. Of course, when Mr. Anderson comes before the bar of the House, we are going to need to find out who the other Randy is. I do not think there will be a surprised face in here if we find out it is that Liberal minister from Edmonton.