Debates of Oct. 10th, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to give some compliments to my colleague. It was probably the least self-aware speech I have ever heard in the House of Commons. He talked a lot about lies the Liberals have made, and I agree that the Liberals are not honest and have not shown that they have a lot of moral fortitude.

However, I want to quote from a Twitter account that many of us follow. It is called, “Pierre Is Lying To You”. It was found that in just three days—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Maybe we are talking about someone else, but if we are talking about a specific member of the chamber, I will ask that we not use their name, Even if it is quoted from Twitter, we cannot use it.

The member for Edmonton Strathcona has the floor.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, I was not quoting anyone in particular; it is the name of an account. The particular account says that the leader of the official opposition lied 215 times in the House of Commons over three days. I did not say that; the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I know that we are quoting information on here.

The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake is rising on a point of order.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly. Quoting someone saying that someone is lying is not parliamentary.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

That is correct.

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you should have stood in this place when the member opposite giving his speech said “lying” several times. If that is the new standard, then I would ask that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I am sorry. I just took the chair; I was not in the chair when the majority of the hon. member's speech was going. The hon. member was here when I did take over the chair. I apologize for missing that, and I will try not to miss it next time.

I know that the hon. member still has not gotten her question out. The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona has the floor.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about lying, about embarrassment and about all of these things. Of course, I think, “a pox on both their houses”, to be perfectly honest, because this is a debate in this place on which is worse, and that is not very helpful for Canadians who are struggling right now.

One of the things the member's leader said just recently in the media is that he thought it would be a gift to humanity if a nuclear facility were bombed. This would obviously escalate war and cause unbelievable pain and suffering to innocent people. I wonder whether the member agrees with that statement and finds that to be an embarrassment on the world stage.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the only embarrassment is the NDP, which does not condemn people who are sympathizers of a terrorist regime that would burn a Canadian flag and say, “death to Canada”.

The member brought up a phrase; she said “[no] moral fortitude”. “No moral fortitude” is how I would describe the NDP leader, someone who faked and put on a dramatic scene, ripping up their supply and confidence agreement, only to flip-flop two weeks later and tape it right back up just so the NDP could win a seat in Manitoba and use the people of Manitoba. That is no moral fortitude.

The NDP continues to prop up the most corrupt government in Canadian history. Maybe what it needs is some moral fortitude and some clarity to Canadians that we will not stand for anti-Semitism anymore in this country.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, on the topic of moral fortitude, let us ask a question. The Leader of the Opposition was caught red-handed putting in hashtags in order to court individuals who hate women.

The member opposite spoke about fake feminism. so why will he not stand in this place today and actually condemn using hashtags that court individuals who hate women and call for violence against them? He can do that right now. Will he?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will not take any lessons from a member who refused to call out racist blackface that was done by her Prime Minister and who refused to speak up when strong women in her caucus were fired for standing up to the Prime Minister's corruption. She stayed quiet about it.

We will continue to condemn racist blackface and fake feminists like the Prime Minister, in the House and outside the House. I hope that she will join in, finally get some moral fortitude and do the same.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I am hearing in the House today is not particularly edifying. I get the impression that both sides are simply trying to capitalize on the obstruction. I can confirm that it was my Conservative colleague who talked about lies. I would actually like to point out that a big one was told, specifically that the carbon tax applies in Quebec. We have a party on the other side that refuses to hand over documents and refuses to co-operate with the House.

Farmers are on the Hill today because we need to move several issues forward in the coming weeks, including protecting supply management with Bill C‑282. There is also Bill C‑319, which seeks to increase OAS by 10% for people aged 65 to 74. We have work to get done in the House. Members on both sides should stop standing in the way and shirking their responsibilities. This does nothing to advance democracy.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member brought up taking advantage. The only people taking advantage of anyone are the members of the Liberal-NDP government, who are taking advantage of Canadians. When the government slammed them with a carbon tax scam, it took advantage of them. Now, under the guise of climate change, it is once again trying to take advantage of Canadians and their hard-earned money by awarding $400 million in a slush fund to Liberal-connected insiders. Canadians are tired of being taken advantage of.

The member also talked about farmers. Common-sense Conservatives are always on the side of farmers. That is why we brought Bill C-234 forward to lower the cost of food and once again reward the hard work of our patriotic farmers. What did the corrupt Liberal-NDP government do under its woke, radical environment policies? It made it impossible for anyone to be able to support the bill when the radical environment minister—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

What a moron.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. I just heard the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay refer to another hon. member as a moron, so I would suggest that he retract that.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not remember whether I said the word “moron” when I referred to him, but if I did, I would recognize that calling someone a moron is unparliamentary. I would not want to take down anything I know about people I know who are actually moronic and who actually have good hearts, so I do retract.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I would suggest that maybe the hon. member wants to unequivocally retract that, without the commentary. I, as Speaker, would really appreciate that.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have such enormous respect for you. I absolutely retract.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Thank you.

The hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn can finish up his thought before I go to one more question.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will leave it at that. I think it is on clear display how irrelevant some members are in the House.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the debate is actually a very clear signal of how things have gotten in the House. Because of scandal and waste from the Liberal government propped up by the NDP, we are seized with the privilege motion before us. The fact is that there are not any solid questions coming from the left rump over there of the NDP, the eco activists. The fact is that they are okay with the Liberals' continuing to use tax money to enrich their friends. They are taking from the have-nots and giving to the have-yachts. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said it very well: Liberals are going to be liberal.

There are 186 conflicts of interest. Why can we not get the documents so that we can find out how much money the Liberal government has given to its friends?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will admit that my friend from Regina—Lewvan is a great hockey player, and so is his son.

The heart of the discussion we are having in the House is about corruption, something that obviously, with the questions we are hearing from members of the Liberal-NDP costly coalition, they are not taking seriously, because they think they can cover it up again.

There were 186 examples of conflict of interest with a $400-million slush fund given to connected Liberal insiders. What Canadians want, all everyone is asking for, is to release the documents to the RCMP so we can shed some light on another scandal by the current government that only costs Canadian taxpayers at the end of the day. Otherwise it is time to call a carbon tax election so common-sense Conservatives can kick the costly coalition to the curb for good.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Drummond. I hope his speech is good. It usually is. I will listen to it closely.

On June 10, the House was clear when it gave the government the order to submit a series of documents to the law clerk of the House so that he could hand them over to the police. Why did it do that? That is the question.

The Liberals get all worked up, saying that it is crazy, that we cannot hand over documents to the police, that we cannot do their job for them. The Conservatives say that it is crazy, that the Liberals across the aisle are corrupt, that they do not want to hand over the documents.

In fact, the answer may be somewhere in between, because we still do not have enough information, so we cannot yet say whether they are corrupt. Neither can we say whether the documents should be given to the police. What we can say is that this whole thing smells, that money was mismanaged, and that, for that reason, we are justified in asking for access to the documents to see what really happened. That is why we support this motion.

It all began at the end of 2022, when whistle-blowers informed the Office of the Auditor General of Canada and the Privy Council, in other words the government, that they were uncomfortable with the way that Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, was being managed. In 2023, things took off. An audit conducted by Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton appeared to confirm what the whistle-blowers had said.

At that time, the government appeared to be stalling. The whistle-blowers grew impatient, disappointed at the government's failure to act. We began seeing leaks in the media, which increased the pressure. Then, the president and CEO resigned, followed by the chair who managed the fund.

On June 4, 2024, a bomb went off, figuratively of course, when the Auditor General decided to investigate the fund because she, too, had been alerted. She looked at 58 out of a total of 420 projects. That is a substantial number of projects, but she did not look at them all. In the 58 projects she looked at that spanned from April 1, 2017, to December 31, 2023, she mostly found serious governance issues. Conflict of interest management was sorely lacking. Some directors voted for the allocation of funds to businesses in which they had a personal interest. That is the sort of thing that does not usually happen. It is basic good judgment. Usually, directors with a personal interest recuse themselves. It appears, however, that the people around that particular table did not possess good judgment.

The Auditor General found 90 cases of conflict of interest amounting to $76 million. Obviously, we do not have the details, but we would like to. She found 10 ineligible projects with funding that totalled $59 million. She only looked at 58 projects out of 420, but she discovered all that. Imagine if she had reviewed all 420 projects.

We do not have all the details. That is why on June 10 the House asked for access to the documents. We are now into October, and June 10 is starting to feel like ancient history. Five months have gone by, but the government has not responded to the House's order yet. When the other side of the House claims that this question of privilege is not justified, I would reply that there are limits. This question of privilege is totally justified. The Liberals may not like it, but it is not up to them to decide how the House votes. They do not hold a majority; they are the minority. They are not above Parliament, but beholden to it. There is a difference.

The only limit on the House's ability to demand information is the House's good judgment, not the government's willingness to comply. The government must honour Parliament's orders. It is not a choice or an option; it is an obligation. If the Liberals are unhappy with the composition of Parliament, all they have to do is call an election. We will see whether they are happier with that result.

In fact, that is the principle behind responsible government. It was the main demand of the Patriots. People died for that. The British Crown burned down villages and put people in prison. Some were deported, while others were hanged. Ten years later, the people had responsible government. Almost two centuries later, I hope that the Liberal government will have the courage to honour this principle, the legacy left by the Patriots.

As for Sustainable Development and Technology Canada, SDTC, I have my own little story. In 2019, I was the economic development and industry critic. Navdeep Bains was minister of industry at the time. Good student that I am, I looked into the portfolios assigned to the minister to see how money was being spent under his watch, and I discovered the existence of the famous fund managed by SDTC. I wondered what the purpose of the fund was, so I looked into that as well.

I found that the fund's mission was to “support Canadian companies with the potential to become world leaders [in clean technology]”. That was interesting. I wanted to know which companies and consortiums had benefited from funding. Names like Shell Canada, TransCanada Pipeline, Suncor Energy, Colonial Pipeline Company, Enbridge and Pipeline Research Council International came up—all nice French names by the way. It seems to me that when we talk about world leaders in clean technology, these are not the companies we think of.

In 2016, the fund gave a $5-million grant to a Calgary-based company to test and market a technology that would make it possible to exploit deeper or hard-to-reach oil sands deposits. Money was taken from a fund for green technologies to help get more oil out from deeper in the ground. That is what the money was used for. Money for green technologies was literally diverted to benefit the oil companies. I was scandalized. We were paying the polluter, which made no damn sense. In fact, only the Bloc Québécois condemned this at the time, not the NDP or the Liberals, and especially not the Conservatives. It made the front page of the Journal de Montréal, but that was not enough to change anything. I could understand the Conservatives, who wake up each morning and check the oil share prices but, in the case of the other parties, we have a problem.

More specifically, I analyzed the years 2011 to 2015 to compare what happened with the green fund under the Conservatives and under the Liberals. Under the Conservatives, between 2011 and 2015, $50 million from the green fund went to companies connected to the oil and gas sector. Between 2015 and 2019, it is the same story: $50 million was misappropriated by the Liberals to the benefit of oil and gas companies. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Oil companies have already loaded up on taxpayer money to the tune of billions of dollars, but I guess that was not enough. They had to steal money from the green fund too. If we scratch the Liberals' green veneer, it will soon be apparent that it is completely brown underneath.

The Liberals promised us they would change, that they would bring a halt to oil company subsidies. They have since changed their vocabulary and no longer talk about this. They talk about ending inefficient subsidies. Not quite the same thing, is it. I would like to know what an efficient oil subsidy is. The fact is that they promised to reduce subsidies to oil companies, so the Bloc members put two and two together.

We told ourselves that things were not going well for the Liberals and that they would get smoked if an election were held. Basically, we wanted to give them a chance by giving them the opportunity to keep their promises. We were prepared to forestall an election call for now and let them enjoy their holidays. In exchange, though, we proposed something that would even have helped them keep their promises. To me, helping them keep their promises is not that bad.

As we know, seniors have been hit hard by inflation. The Liberals created two classes of seniors, and those aged 65 to 74 got nothing at all during this time. Our proposal was simple: Funding pensions by cutting oil subsidies a bit. Last week, believe it or not, they said no. They are unable to take money earmarked for oil companies and spend it on seniors instead, but they are able to take money from the green fund and hand it to oil companies. They do not have money for seniors, but for oil companies raking in billions of dollars a year, it is an open bar.

When the Liberals complain about all sorts of things, I have zero sympathy for them. Ultimately, when they do not want to hand over documents or give the public what it needs, we will not stand alongside them. We will continue working to ensure that Quebeckers get their money and that the documents will be made public.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my question will follow immediately after a very simple statement that came from the RCMP in regard to this. I will quote from the letter signed by the commissioner of the RCMP, in which it states, “There is significant risk that the motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.”

The institution of the RCMP is calling into question what parliamentarians want to provide directly to the RCMP. If we have the RCMP concerned about the process, even though we have unfettered powers, and if members or the Conservatives want to put someone in jail, they can apparently, at the end of the day is there not a responsibility on all of us to at least listen to what it has to say?