House of Commons Hansard #353 of the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was documents.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Canada Health Act First reading of Bill C-414. The bill amends the Canada Health Act to include community-based mental health, addictions, and substance use services as insured services, requiring provinces and territories to provide coverage. 200 words.

Petitions

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Members debate the government's refusal to provide unredacted documents on the Sustainable Development Technology Canada fund, following Auditor General's findings of conflicts of interest and ineligible projects. Opposition demands documents go to RCMP, citing parliamentary privilege. Government cites Charter rights and police independence concerns, suggesting committee review and accusing opposition of playing political games and filibustering. 55000 words, 7 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives focus on the carbon tax, citing the PBO report to argue it costs Canadians more, linking it to the rising cost of living, and repeatedly calling for a carbon tax election. They also criticize the government over a $400-million green slush fund scandal, alleging obstruction of justice for refusing to provide documents to the RCMP, and raise issues of national security and income inequality.
The Liberals defend the carbon tax and Canada Carbon Rebate using the PBO report, highlighting climate change impacts. They accuse Conservatives of interfering with police and parliamentary proceedings. They also emphasize support for supply management, social programs like dental care and the Canada child benefit, addressing foreign interference, and condemning groups like Samidoun.
The Bloc criticizes the Senate's obstruction of Bill C-282 on supply management and calls on the government to intervene. They also demand the Liberals increase old age security for seniors 65-74 via Bill C-319.
The NDP raise concerns about the high cost of groceries and Canadians relying on credit cards. They criticize the Liberals' failure on health care, government lawyers' offensive language regarding clean water for First Nations, and call for action on the Israel-Gaza situation.
The Green Party raises concerns about the Six Nations' community health centre due to black mould and inadequate support from Indigenous Services Canada.

Finance Members debate the Canadian economy and the impact of government policies, focusing on the Liberal government's capital gains tax increase. Conservative MP Tracy Gray argues it hurts small businesses, investment, productivity, and housing construction, citing constituent concerns. Liberal MP Jenica Atwin challenges the claim it is a job-killing tax, citing a report suggesting it benefits the wealthy. 1500 words, 10 minutes.

Adjournment Debates

Kitchener-Toronto railway service Mike Morrice asks Adam van Koeverden for a timeline from the province on two-way, all-day GO train service between Kitchener and Toronto. Van Koeverden notes the federal government has committed funding and says that GO train service is a provincial matter, mentioning a by-election in Milton.
Carbon tax effects in Alberta Martin Shields cites a PBO report that Albertans will pay more in carbon tax than they receive in rebates. Adam van Koeverden responds that the PBO didn't consider the costs of climate inaction. Shields notes that the carbon tax hurts public services. Van Koeverden blames Alberta's high-carbon electricity grid.
Decriminalization of hard drugs Jamil Jivani criticizes the Liberal government for considering a proposal to decriminalize hard drugs, citing the overdose crisis and Minister Lametti's praise for the idea. Adam van Koeverden responds that the government rejected a similar request from Toronto and accuses Jivani of spreading misinformation.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member is here. We share an alma mater, Concordia University, though I think there was quite some time between our graduation years. It took me a long time to finish my bachelor's degree, I will jokingly say.

In this particular case, there is an easy way for it to end and get to committee. As I mentioned twice during my intervention, the member can go to any member of the government and just convince them to release all of the documents, not just the redacted pieces. Plus, as I quoted from the Speaker's ruling, some documents were completely withheld. I would ask the government to just table the documents with the law clerk, everybody gets to see them, they get passed on to the RCMP, this ends and we can continue on with the business of the people of Canada.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB

Madam Speaker, I spoke about this issue before. The member is accusing Ms. Verschuren, who is the person in conflict of interest, of awarding her own company millions of dollars. She also happened, at the same time, to be donating money to the Conservative Party.

How can the member square the circle of this accusation that she is a Liberal partisan when the truth is she is actually a Liberal and Conservative partisan? She was donating to the Conservative Party as early as 2013 and, just recently, in the last tax year.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is simple: I do not care who someone donates to. If they steal from Canadian taxpayers, they deserve to be in front of a court, and the judges can decide.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON

Madam Speaker, it is always a wonderful opportunity and a true privilege to stand in the House of Commons and represent my amazing riding of Peterborough—Kawartha.

Here we are, and what are we doing today in the House of Commons? I often think the folks at home watching must feel like they are just watching an episode of The Young and the Restless. In the three years since I have been elected, they could turn on ParlVU or CPAC, turn it off for a couple of months or a year even, turn it back on, and here we are, still talking about incompetence and corruption, a lack of accountability, a lack of transparency and division in our country that has never reached this level in my lifetime of 45 years.

What has happened here in the House of Commons is that Parliament has basically been brought to a halt, because the Liberals are refusing to turn over documents, and the Conservatives are demanding they do. What are these documents and what are we talking about? It is called the green slush fund. It is based on Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC.

This is a green slush fund, and it is supposed to be for companies to apply to. It is a billion-dollar fund to invest in green technologies or green businesses. What does that mean? A whistle-blower came before committee, and I think this is a really important piece of this discussion. Many bureaucrats and many people have to go to work, and maybe they are privy to some very important information there. At the end of the day, and our job is really no different, people have to put their head down on the pillow and be comfortable, by their moral compass, with what they are actually doing.

The bureaucrats working under this fund, and under the Prime Minister, could not do that any longer, so they came forward to committee. They are what are called whistle-blowers. They said serious corruption was happening. I am going to read some of the testimony that was put forward:

I think the Auditor General's investigation was more of a cursory review. I don't think the goal and mandate of the Auditor General's office is to actually look into criminality, so I'm not surprised by the fact that they haven't found anything criminal. They're not looking at intent. If their investigation was focused on intent, of course they would find the criminality....

I know that the federal government, like the minister, has continued saying that there was no criminal intent and nothing was found, but I think the committee would agree that they're not to be trusted on this situation. I would happily agree to whatever the findings are by the RCMP, but I would say that I wouldn't trust that there isn't any criminality unless the RCMP is given full authority to investigate....

Again, if you bring in the RCMP and they do their investigation and they find something or they don't, I think the public would be happy with that. I don't think we should leave it to the current federal government or the ruling party to make those decisions. Let the public see what's there.

Here is another quote: “Just as I was always confident that the Auditor General would confirm the financial mismanagement at SDTC, I remain equally confident that the RCMP will substantiate the criminal activities that occurred within the organization.”

We are demanding that documents be handed over. The Speaker has ruled in favour of this. The opposition parties alongside us, everyone except the Liberals, have agreed with what we have asked for. These are documents that outline what corruption has happened. This is critical because it is the money of the people watching at home.

The government does not have its own money. It has taxpayers' money, and there should be a pretty strong understanding and agreement that whoever is in government is not abusing that money, wasting that money or giving it to their friends and family for them to get rich and not actually do any work.

It is a very simple ask. I want to read a couple of things into the record here, but first there is something I would ask people at home to really think about. This is a lot of procedural conversation about parliamentary privilege and this and that, but the question they need to ask themselves is, why do these documents exist in the first place? Why do we have a government in power that would not just misuse money but also give taxpayer money to its friends and family? Why are we even having this discussion? That is the biggest question I would have.

If the Liberals were innocent, if they were truly here to represent people, elected to ensure transparency and accountability, they would hand unredacted documents over to ensure accountability and transparency. Why do these documents exist in the first place? What are the Liberals hiding? How did we get here? How did we get to a level of corruption where we have hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that has not gone to improving our lives and, in fact, has made it significantly worse? That is the question that needs to be asked today.

The Auditor General of Canada found that the Prime Minister turned the Sustainable Development Technology Canada fund into a slush fund for Liberal insiders. In this report specifically, the Auditor General found that $59 million was awarded to 10 ineligible projects that, on occasions, could not demonstrate an environmental benefit or development of green technology. That amount, $59 million, sounds a lot like the arrive scam app number.

There was $334 million sent to over 186 projects in which the board members had a conflict of interest. The Auditor General did not even do all 400 cases. Can people imagine how many more there are? Let us not imagine. Let us get the documents and let us see. The Auditor General made it clear that the blame for this scandal falls on the Prime Minister's Minister of Industry, who did not sufficiently monitor the contracts that were given to the Liberal insiders. This is obviously very serious.

I think it is important to go back to how we even got here. I want to read a quote into the record. I want people at home to guess who said this:

Political leadership is about raising the bar on openness and transparency....

As a Member of Parliament, as a Leadership Candidate, and now as Leader of my Party, I have taken every opportunity to raise the bar when it comes to openness and accountability...As Leader of my Party, I made raising the bar on transparency and openness my first major policy announcement, so that Canadians can better hold their leaders accountable.

For me, transparency isn’t a slogan or a tactic; it’s a way of doing business. I trust Canadians. I value their opinions. And now that I’ve heard them, I’m going to act.

That was from June 2013. Are there any guesses as to who said that? It was the Prime Minister. Oh, how the tides have turned.

I want to read another one because they are just so good. Get some popcorn, folks, because we are here for a while. He said, “I think we're going to have to embark on a completely different style of government”. We could interpret that a lot of ways. He said:

A government that both accepts its responsibilities to be open and transparent, but also a population that doesn't mind lifting the veil to see how sausages are made. That there is a dual responsibility, in changing towards more open and transparent functioning, that really will go to a deep shift in how government operates.

Are there any guesses as to who said that? It was the same guy, the Prime Minister, in April 2015. I have another quote from April 2015: “Once I look at the trend lines in democracy, the empowering of citizens and activists, I know that the government of the future is going to be very, very different than governments of the past”. It sure is different. Since I have been here, it has been another day and another scandal. I have never seen the country in the state it is now in.

People ask me why Conservatives have to be so hard on the Prime Minister. It is because the opposition's role is to ensure that the government is doing the best for the people of Canada. It is to bring balance to this place. The Prime Minister has shown that he is incapable of balance. He has shown that it is rules for thee, but not for me.

I want to go through the list of scandals. Again, people should grab some popcorn because there are a lot of them. There is the McKinsey scandal. The Auditor General of Canada report criticizes the Prime Minister and the government for awarding $200 million in contracts to McKinsey without proper guidelines; 90% of contracts were awarded without clear justification, with many lacking defined purposes or outcomes. In some cases, the Canada Border Services Agency altered requirements to allow McKinsey to qualify; 70% of contracts were sole-sourced, with no explanation for bypassing competitive processes. McKinsey operated without necessary security clearances in 13 out of 17 contracts. The firm's past failures include involvement in the Canada Infrastructure Bank and contributing to the opioid crisis, which has killed 42,000 Canadians since 2015. The Liberals paid $600 million in damages for this.

Then we have the trip to Jamaica; the Prime Minister's $84,000 holiday vacation was a gift from family friends. Again, we have rules for thee, but not for me. Then he went to Montana for $228,000, not including the salaries of the RCMP officers. I am not done yet. There was another trip to Jamaica in April. That one was $162,000. Who can forget arrive scam? I know my friend from Brantford—Brant sure does not forget that one. We had to bring forward a government agency, GC Strategies. Does anybody know what “GC Strategies” stands for? It stands for “Government of Canada Strategies”. There was $60 million that went to a company that does not even exist and that two guys were able to build in a weekend for under $250,000 of taxpayer money. Does anyone want to know why the cost of living is out of control? We do not have a revenue problem in this country. We have a Prime Minister with a spending and corruption problem.

Let us not forget about the $6,000-a-night hotel room, where the Prime Minister burst into song at the Queen's funeral. Who could ever forget the WE Charity? The Prime Minister announced that the WE Charity would manage the $912-million Canada student service grant, and the Ethics Commissioner initiated an investigation into that decision on July 3, 2020.

Probably my favourite scandal that stands today is SNC-Lavalin; it really speaks to the character of what we are dealing with and the sort of rot we have seen in this country. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Mario Dion, investigated allegations that the Prime Minister's Office pressured former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould regarding SNC-Lavalin. Raybould resigned from cabinet and principal secretary Gerald Butts denied the claims before resigning. Jane Philpott also resigned in protest.

In August 2019, the commissioner found that the Prime Minister and his officials had breached ethics rules by attempting to undermine the federal prosecutor's decisions. SNC-Lavalin has been charged with fraud and corruption in connection with payments of nearly $48 million to public officials in Libya under Moammar Gadhafi's government and allegations that it defrauded a Libyan organization of an estimated $130 million. Two Liberal ministers took the fall for that one; they were female, I might add. That is another one of these classic things. I cannot wait to see who is going to take the fall for these documents. They will be turned over because we are not going to stop. Let us have that on this conversation.

To put this into context, can we imagine if somebody from CRA phoned and said, “We think you have violated the tax law and we need you to hand over documents”, and we said no? What would happen? Would the official just leave and say it was no problem? Let us say someone handed over documents but had blacked out everything important that CRA wanted to know. Would CRA be okay with that? The general public has to follow every single rule that the government imposes on them while it taxes them into poverty, but the government and the Prime Minister say, “No, not us; we are not responsible for following any rules”.

This mentality bleeds down into the entire front rows and benches, and not just that but into society. We have a societal blister in this country of a lack of accountability, a lack of transparency. It bleeds into our public safety when criminals have no consequences and crime is rampant; it is all over the place. Then, there is the erosion of trust in institutions. When we erode trust, we create chaos because there is no relationship. It is the most detrimental thing we can do, and the people do not trust the government, nor should they. I am not even done reading half the scandals, and the Prime Minister has only been in power for nine years.

The other important piece to talk about in this is the green slush fund and, in itself, what it truly is. As we found out today, the PBO has now said that the carbon tax is just this big scam. Conservatives have been saying this from day one. It is driving up the cost of everything. Canadians are paying more out than they are getting back, and the PBO confirmed this yet again. Truckers testified in committee that they are paying $20,000 in carbon tax. What do they think is going to happen to the cost of food? Why has housing doubled under the current Prime Minister? That is what I would like to know. The green, environmentally friendly initiative that the Liberals stand on all the time is a facade. They tout themselves as the most environmentally conscious party, but this is pandering. That carbon tax is not an environmental plan; it is a tax plan.

We literally had the Minister of Mental Health stand up in the House and say that we wanted the planet to burn. Later, we found out that the Minister of Environment prevented 50 firefighters and 20 fire trucks from fighting the fire in Jasper while it burned. That is the gist of what we are talking about.

I want to end with this: The undercurrent of all of this is that the government wastes money. I used to worry about how we were going to make this money work. Well, I just found $400 million. The Conservatives would make life more affordable for Canadians. We would restore hope, and we would make housing, food and groceries affordable again.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

4:25 p.m.

Windsor—Tecumseh Ontario

Liberal

Irek Kusmierczyk LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment

Madam Speaker, in response to this production order, the commissioner of the RCMP wrote, in a letter to MPs, “In a free and democratic society, [police independence] ensures that the government cannot direct or influence the actions of law enforcement.” It is incredible that the RCMP commissioner had to write that letter and remind MPs of what is at stake here.

My family fled a Communist dictatorship 40 years ago, where politicians directed police to attack and go after the residents of that country.

The fundamental question in this debate, in the House, on this day, is as follows: Why do the Conservatives feel so comfortable undermining the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

October 10th, 2024 / 4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON

Madam Speaker, it is curious; that member talks about violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when he wants to freeze Canadians' bank accounts. That would be a great question for him about invoking the strongest measure ever used in this House by that party. It was absolutely absurd.

There was not a truck on that road when the Prime Minister kept the Emergencies Act in place. This is absurd, and everyone knows it.

I want to read what somebody wrote to me. This is from Erin Enns, who wrote on my Facebook page. She is watching this debate. This is what she has to say to the Liberal government and to the member opposite: “As a Canadian tax payer what gives you...the right to spend our hard earned money on frivolous things and not feel like you should divulge where specifically it went? Where do you get off feeling like you don’t work for the Canadian people yet we pay your salary?”

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the same question that the Liberal member just asked my colleague.

Does she believe that this request for documents is problematic from the perspective of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON

Madam Speaker, I love that question because I absolutely do not think that.

This is public information. The government is a public organization. These are public documents. This is public taxpayer money. There is zero reason that the unredacted documents should not be handed over to the Canadian people in Parliament.

It makes no sense to even have that argument. I said that at the beginning of my speech.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB

Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have been able to debate the hon. member since the summer.

I want to thank her sincerely for her courage and her allyship to the 2SLGBTQI community, with which she stood in solidarity when there was a very terrible and violent act of burning a pride flag in her community. I know how much courage it takes to do that, and it really means a lot to me personally.

In addition to that comment, I want to refer to an issue that I mentioned to her colleague related to Conservative donations. Part of the argument that has been made over the last few days by the Conservatives is that Ms. Verschuren, who was the chair of SDTC and gave herself millions of dollars, is a Liberal insider. As much as I agree, throughout her entire time as the chair of SDTC, she donated the maximum amounts to the Conservative Party, in addition to the Liberal Party.

It would be more fair to suggest that she is a Liberal and Conservative insider. Would the member agree?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON

Madam Speaker, I actually do not care whom people donate to. What I care about is that taxpayer money is not being used for corruption.

That is the job of this place, to ensure that is happening. That is why we were elected. If we want to restore transparency and accountability, then we have to shine a light on what is happening. If we do not, then we cannot fix it.

Absolutely, let us figure this out; let us get the documents and get Parliament working again.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

4:30 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, the member says she does not care.

That is interesting. The chairperson was an adviser to Stephen Harper, former prime minister Brian Mulroney and former minister of finance Jim Flaherty, all of them Conservatives. As we know, she was a great donor to the Conservative Party. However, Conservative after Conservative, dozens of them, stand up and call her a Liberal insider.

It is all about the spreading of misinformation; in the same way, the member opposite will not answer the question directly. The RCMP and the Auditor General of Canada have said that this is, in essence, a game the Conservative Party is playing and that it is dangerous because it is borderline dealing with issues that offend the Charter of Rights and due process. However, Conservatives just stand back and ignore it.

The Conservative opposition is irresponsible. Why will the Conservatives not do the honourable thing, and at least listen to what the RCMP and the Auditor General are saying about this political game they are playing?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON

Madam Speaker, “do the honourable thing”: That is pretty funny coming from that side of the House. Listen, we are not telling the RCMP to do a thing. We are telling the Liberals to hand over these unredacted documents. I will remind the member opposite that the Charter of Rights is not in place to protect the government from the people, it is in place to protect the people from the government.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

Madam Speaker, I just want to clarify the record. The Auditor General found that SDTC awarded $59 million to 10 ineligible projects that at times could not prove an environmental benefit or development of green technology; $334 million over 186 cases to projects in which board members held a conflict of interest; and $58 million to projects without guaranteeing that the terms and conditions were met. As a review, I wonder what people on Facebook are saying, what constituents are saying, what Canadians are saying. How outraged are they about those findings?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has been a true warrior in the fight of exposing this massive corruption. He is incredible. The member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa is an amazing member of Parliament. He exposed so much of this corruption day in, day out, and that is really what this is about.

I would strongly encourage members opposite to go knock on doors, because people are genuinely exhausted. They are genuinely frustrated and hurting. They have lost hope and trust, and they want to restore hope and affordability.

I want to end by saying what I was trying to say earlier. I used to worry how we would fix all of this and how we would find money to invest in this. The biggest thing that hurts when funds are misappropriated, and especially in corruption, is social programming. We have never seen people struggle more than they do right now. People who used to volunteer at food banks are now accessing them.

Today is World Mental Health Day, and I just want to take a moment to recognize everybody struggling. Hope is coming, and hope is the glue that allows us to go on when we think we cannot. Restoring affordability for Canadians is the best, most powerful thing we can do as a government to ensure that people can afford their homes and their groceries.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB

Madam Speaker, I want to give my hon. colleague the opportunity to speak directly to Canadians, as she has been doing in her speech, who are considering voting for the Conservative Party versus the Liberal Party versus the New Democrats. Our country has been governed by just the Liberals and the Conservatives. The Conservatives have found themselves, throughout the course of history, in very similar circumstances to those of the Liberal government, whether it was Mike Duffy during the Harper era or what we saw with fake lakes and bags of money handed over to individuals, and then they were found to be in contempt of the public spending laws. What does she say to Canadians, and has the Conservative Party not learned more about financial accountability considering its past?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON

Madam Speaker, the only way forward is to have sensible economic policies that have checks and balances in place. This green slush fund is a perfect example of money that is taken and thrown to the wind, but not only to the wind but to people who have no right to it. It is a violation of ethics. That is the first—

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

4:35 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Infrastructure; the hon. member for Bow River, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Durham, Mental Health and Addictions.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC

Madam Speaker, my colleague asked a question for those watching out there today. Many have heard about this. What is this green slush fund and why are we here today?

The Liberal government is obstructing justice by refusing to turn over documents to the RCMP showing that Liberal-appointed managers used the green slush fund to pay nearly $400 million to companies that they owned. There is so much scandal with this particular NDP-Liberal government that it is hard to keep track, and we just get desensitized to it, even in this place. There is so much of it, as my colleague mentioned. She did not even get through the full list of the scandals. We are here today because Canadians deserve transparency and a full investigation into this scandal. This is a big one. It is $400 million as it stands, and further investigation needs to happen.

I think we also need to highlight that while the NDP-Liberals have their carbon tax and are bleeding money from Canadians to pay into their carbon tax schemes, this is where the money is going. While people are literally turning down their thermostat or buying noodles for a dollar a package at the grocery store just to survive, these guys are filling their friends' pockets with literally hundreds of millions of dollars.

I will make one additional point here. In relation to northern B.C., I was in the House a few weeks ago and talked about how we have just lost two mills in the area. Why have we lost those two mills? The costs are so exorbitant just to get timber now that some of these companies have said that they cannot afford to do it anymore, a direct attribution to the carbon tax and its costs.

I am going to talk about the basics and then I am going to get into it. It is going to take some time, but I think the folks out there want a deeper dive and want to know a little bit more. What are the basics of the scandal? At least $390 million has gone to Liberal insiders and this is what the Liberals are trying to hide, obviously. That is why they are opposing this production order for documents to be turned over to the RCMP. Obviously, it is better to cover it up, and we have seen the examples of where they do it all the time. That is why the Prime Minister's personal department, the PCO, defied the order of the House to produce these documents and ordered departments to redact all sensitive information.

This is a delay tactic. We want the documents. They gave us some black sheets of paper and that was supposed to pacify us in this place, but we had some pretty sharp members that caught it, and we are standing up to say that this will not cut it.

How bad is it? This is from my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets, who has done yeoman's work on this: “a Governor in Council appointment, a person appointed by the government entrusted to oversee taxpayer money, is not to personally profit from their work on a committee, as a GIC appointment, and neither is their family”.

That is pretty obvious. We call it a conflict of interest in this place. We all know the rules. These folks did not just break the rules but they did it in abundance. Again, in terms of the rules that were set up before, when we were in government, the NDP-Liberals are pushing the boundaries of any limits that were set for any of us in this place.

“In a five-year period where there were 405 transactions approved by the [Sustainable Development Technology Canada] board, the Auditor General sampled 226, so only half of them, and found that 186 of those 226 transactions were conflicted.” One would be bad enough, but there were 186. “That is the 82% and that is, again, the $330 million”, as my colleague had said.

Those numbers are massive, but they are still a little bit unclear. It gets vague when you get past the $100-million mark. What does that actually mean?

Let us talk about Sustainable Development Technology Canada. It was established in 2001 by the Government of Canada through the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology Act to fund the development and demonstration of new technologies that promote sustainable development, and it did some good work. Prior to these guys forming government and some of their ministers getting involved, it was actually doing okay.

SDTC is a federally funded non-profit that is supposed to approve and disburse over $100 million in funds annually to clean-technology companies. Executives awarded projects in which they held conflicts of over $330 million in funds.

In 2019, former Liberal industry minister Navdeep Bains began appointing conflicted executives to the board of SDTC. I will later get into what some of those members have done.

The Prime Minister-appointed board began voting companies in which executives held active conflict of interest SDTC funding. Members were being put on the board that they actually knew were in conflict. They were already getting money from this board, yet they were still appointed to it. It is unbelievable. Governance standards at the fund deteriorated rapidly under the leadership of the new chair, Annette Verschuren. The Auditor General and Ethics Commissioner initiated separate investigations after whistle-blowers came forward with allegations of financial mismanagement at the fund.

I think I want to get into some of these individuals and what the story is. We will talk about Annette Verschuren. She was the chair of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, so she was the head of it. This is from The Globe and Mail:

What’s mind-boggling is that SDTC was already funding an NRStor project in 2019, when Ms. Verschuren was appointed as chair. The Liberal government chose her to oversee an agency that had a funding contract with the company she ran. [Red flag.] ...Last week, SDTC’s former chief executive officer, Leah Lawrence, told a parliamentary committee that she warned an assistant deputy minister at Innovation Science and Economic Development, Andrew Noseworthy. “I expressed concern there was a potential for both conflict of interest and the perception of conflict of interest,” Ms. Lawrence said. “I expressed concern that Ms. Verschuren and SDTC could potentially be damaged by the appointment.”

For her to be still there as a board member is unbelievable. From my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets:

They established something called accelerators, and those accelerators were outside organizations that the board hired to vet proposals and make recommendations to the board. One of those was an organization called the Verschuren Centre at the University of Cape Breton, which is in the name of and was set up by the chair of the green slush fund.

There is MaRS Discovery District at U of T. Members probably know that. Can members guess who chairs MaRS? It is the chair of the green slush fund, Annette Verschuren.

Companies would be screened through the board member-controlled organizations, and shockingly, their companies got recommended to the board for funding. That is just a pure coincidence. With 82% of the transactions that they approved, nine directors were conflicted. These directors do not represent 82% of the green technology industry in Canada....

That is a good thing to highlight. There are so many other entities and companies they could have picked, but they just happened to pick 82% that are part of this particular board. It is unbelievable.

It is strangely a pure coincidence with these hand-picked directors from the Prime Minister.

If that were not bad enough, this particular director [Andrée-Lise Méthot] in 2022 left and went to the Canada Infrastructure Bank board, and the first thing she did was to vote $170 million of infrastructure bank money for a company owned by the chair of the green slush fund, Annette Verschuren.

It is absolutely unbelievable. This is one that is less money, but it is just so obvious that I have to say it.

Annette Verschuren also sought $6 million for the Verschuren Centre at Cape Breton University because it was failing. SDTC said no when it went through the process, because there was a conflict.

However, in emails, it said it would help her find money from other government departments. Pretty soon after that, the Verschuren Centre got $12 million from ACOA and the ISET program. Her other companies got $50 million from Natural Resources Canada, and then of course there is the Infrastructure Bank one.

From a government document, these are some of the numbers that Annette Verschuren was approved in conflict: $332,500, $698,250, $98,000, $102,000, $111,000, $150,000 and it goes on. That is just one of these members of the board who was in conflict.

The next person is Stephen Kukucha. I will quote my colleague again, and he spoke of:

...another director, a fellow named Stephen Kukucha from British Columbia. Stephen Kukucha was a political staffer to former Liberal environment minister Anderson, and he was the organizer for the Liberal Party for the Prime Minister in British Columbia. As a reward, they put him on the green slush fund board. Surprisingly, we have another Liberal on the board in whose company he had a financial interest. In his time on the board, the companies he had a financial interest in received almost $5 million from the very board he was serving on.

This is another conflict. I have some examples of the expenditures listed here for Stephen Kukucha. One is $157,000. Another one is $151,000, and one is $1,033,771. This is all funding approved by the absolutely corrupt board.

We have more. The next member was Guy Ouimet. My colleague said:

...another board member handpicked by the Prime Minister, Guy Ouimet, who has admitted in committee that $17 million of green slush fund money went to companies he has a financial interest in. He said that it is a small amount of money. It may be a small amount of money to him, but it is not to most Canadians, and that amount of money, he admitted, had gone up 1,000% in value since that investment was made in 2019. It [definitely] pays to be a Liberal insider.

He says $17 million is a small amount of money. I do not know what world this guy comes from, but $17 million, to most Canadians, probably 99% of Canadians, is a lot of money. He has an amount in an approved conflict list that actually says $17 million. There is another amount that says $157,000 and another one for $151,000. It is just unbelievable. It just keeps going. It is endless.

We will move on. This is the last one I will mention. This is the one with direct ties to the current radical environment minister. This particular board member's name is Andrée-Lise Méthot. As my colleague said:

One director was particularly aggressive.... She was appointed in 2016 by the Prime Minister. Her name is Andrée-Lise Méthot. She runs a venture capital firm called Cycle Capital, in green technologies. Andrée-Lise Méthot's companies, before and during her time on the board, received $250 million in grants from the SDTC.

That is a quarter of a billion dollars, folks, and that name of Cycle Capital will come up again. My colleague continues, “while she was on the board, $114 million went to green companies that she had invested in.” I already made reference to the connection between this person on the board and the current radical environment minister, the same environment minister who is causing mills to close in my riding, is limiting oil and gas development in my riding, and is limiting mining investment in the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Nunavut.

That same radical minister is having an effect. He wants Canadians to pay the carbon tax so he can get more money and give it to his friends. As my colleague said, “her in-house, paid lobbyist for 10 years before he was elected...was the current radical Minister of the Environment. While he was lobbying for Cycle Capital, the current radical Minister of the Environment got $111 million.” That is what he went to work for. He made money for this company. He brought that kind of money in before he was a minister.

This is the radical Minister of the Environment. In his time as lobbyist for Cycle Capital, for which he lobbied 25 times in the year before his entering the House, the PMO and the industry department gave over $100 million in green slush money to Cycle Capital.

What is even more shocking is that the minister is a member of the House right now, but he still owns shares in that particular company. The question is that we are not sure what the value of those shares is. He has not declared that. That is, again, what some of these documents will disclose, and we will hopefully find out how much that is.

I will read on. My colleague said, “even though, as a cabinet minister of government, he participated in discussions that gave the green slush fund another $750 million, of which over a quarter has gone to that company.” This is the cabinet minister who has given the money to the same group to spend because he figured he could help out the Liberals' friends by dumping money into this thing, so he funded the fund with another three-quarters of a billion dollars.

The minister has given money to a company he has direct ties to and has shares in. It is hard to argue that it is not going over there. We hope the documents will be forthcoming so we can actually see it. As my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets said, “He still owns shares in it. He has not disclosed what they are worth.” He then makes reference to the minister having previous experience wearing an orange jumpsuit.

I think what bothered me the most when I saw some of these numbers is that we are the ones who go up to the northern communities, and I face this every time I go to Fort St. John and other northern communities in my riding. There, this is the issue that folks are dealing with. I will use an example. The carbon tax bill for a person in Fort Nelson living in a 1,500 square foot mobile home was over $500. This was in the spring, by the way, and over half of that bill was pure carbon tax. This person, who probably cannot afford much, is trying to stay warm in the north in a mobile home, and the radical minister is saying that this person can afford to pay a bit more. It would be one thing if it were going to a good cause and was for a good reason, but now we see evidence that it is going to line the pockets of his Liberal friends. That is even more of a travesty in what is happening here.

We have used what maybe some would call a slogan, but people are genuinely struggling to feed themselves, stay warm and house themselves. Some people in these homeless encampments just cannot afford to live in an apartment anymore. They have nowhere else to go. They ran out of money or have lost their job in the natural resource sector for some reason, again because of the radical minister's policies.

What do we know in conclusion? The Auditor General of Canada found that the Prime Minister had turned Sustainable Development Technology Canada into a slush fund for Liberal insiders. As my colleague pointed out, “A recording of a senior civil servant slammed the ‘outright incompetence’ of the [Trudeau] government, which gave 390 million dollars' worth of contracts—

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

4:55 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

The hon. member knows we cannot use the names of members. I would like the hon. member to retract the use of the name.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC

Madam Speaker, my colleague pointed out that “a recording of a senior civil servant slammed the ‘outright incompetence’ of the [NDP-Liberal] government, which gave 390 million dollars' worth of contracts inappropriately.” The Auditor General found the SDTC gave $58 million to 10 ineligible projects that, on occasion, could not demonstrate an environmental benefit or development of green technology, and that $334 million over 186 cases was given to projects in which board members held a conflict of interest. Another $58 million was given to projects without ensuring contribution agreement terms were met.

The Auditor General made it clear that the blame for this scandal falls on the Prime Minister and the industry minister, and I would also argue the current environment minister, who did not sufficiently monitor the contracts that were given to Liberal insiders. While the radical environment minister punishes us, he lines the pockets of his NDP-Liberal friends. While the minister shuts down forestry with his radical 30 by 30 closures in B.C., Quebec and across the country, his friends are pocketing millions. While he shuts down the responsible oil and gas developments that keep our northern communities going and keep us warm in the winter, he helps his friends pocket hundreds of millions of dollars.

I will finish by quoting my friend from South Shore—St. Margarets, who stated:

This is corruption like we have never seen in Canada. This is why we have asked for the documents, because the Liberals are hiding documents. This is why they are resisting and hiding the documents, because they know there is more corruption there with their hand-picked directors. If we were a private sector institution, we would be turning those documents over to the police to investigate. That is our job. No, it is not just the job of the police to go to the courts to seek that. It is our job to—

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

4:55 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

We have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

4:55 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, at times it is fairly pathetic to see how Conservatives will manipulate their speeches to take character assassination to the degree found in the member's speech.

The question I asked previously was about the chair of the organization we are talking about. She was a political adviser to Stephen Harper, Brian Mulroney and Jim Flaherty. She is a great donor to the Conservative Party of Canada. She has donated thousands and thousands of dollars, yet Conservative member after Conservative member continues to say she is Liberal-friendly.

The Conservative game is about character assassination and trying to make politics as ugly as possible so they can feed the far right. It is sad to see. The reality is that the government saw actions being taken that were inappropriate and took action to ensure that taxpayers and Canadians would get justice.

When will the Conservatives stop the disgusting game they are playing, allow us to get down to business and put Canadians ahead of their political interests?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC

Madam Speaker, I always get a kick out of the member accusing others of character assassination and then going on to do that exact thing himself. He is gaslighting Canadians.

The bottom line is that the Liberals need to produce the documents. If they were to produce the documents unredacted, then this would all go away.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5 p.m.

Conservative

Don Stewart Conservative Toronto—St. Paul's, ON

Madam Speaker, I am new in this place, but I was not born yesterday. Putting this into perspective, $400 million is equivalent to 3,000 Teslas, 26,000 Maple Leafs tickets or 360 homes in Toronto. It is plain to see what is going on. There were bad things done with Canadians' money and they are being hidden.

The examples you gave me are akin to insider trading. That is the world I come from—

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

I never gave any examples to anyone. I would ask the member to please speak through the Chair.