Debates of Oct. 11th, 2024

The House resumed from October 10 consideration of the motion, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons has been ground to a halt for over two weeks because the Liberal government refuses to comply with an order of the House to permit the distribution of the documents concerning a $400-million corruption scandal. These are heights we have not seen in quite some time, with a scandal of epic proportions. The Liberals have gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the public, the RCMP and the House do not gain access to the critical documents that would show what really went on in this so-called green slush fund scandal, which I will get into momentarily.

It is really important to note that the Auditor General of Canada, which is a non-partisan auditor of the House and of government spending, found that there was almost $400 million in misused taxpayer money, as well as, notably, 186 conflicts of interest for nine board members from this green slush fund. There were nine people who had 186 conflicts of interest, totalling about $400 million. The House has been ground to a halt because the Liberals refuse to reveal the documents that you yourself, Mr. Speaker, and the House ordered them to distribute, and they failed to comply. They have used a whole magnitude of different excuses. In fact, they cannot quite seem to get their story straight in terms of why they do not want to give those documents to Parliament as it has ordered, and we will get into that as well.

All parliamentary business has been ground to a halt for two weeks because of the refusal to comply. I want to talk a bit about what exactly went down at this green slush fund. It is quite interesting, and the tendrils into Liberal insiders go quite deep.

What we have been calling the green slush fund refers to something now defunct, a foundation of government called Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC. It was a foundation set up by a previous Liberal government in 2001; in essence, its purpose was to provide taxpayer funds to green technology. It has since carried on for a number of decades, and it is now defunct. It is just another foundation, another group, another organization that is in the graveyard of Liberal corruption. It is another fatality of Liberal insider behaviour.

The government of the day appoints a number of the board members for this fund, as we will call it. Certainly, the Prime Minister would have signed off on a number of the board members from the cabinet discussion, and that is important to remember. The Prime Minister appointed many of the board members on this fund. After the Liberal government was elected in 2015, things really took a turn in this foundation.

The Auditor General of Canada found that the Liberal government turned this foundation into what is, in essence, a slush fund, where Liberal insiders appointed to the board funnelled hundreds of millions of dollars to their own companies, into their own pockets. This totalled $400 million, with 186 conflicts of interest proven by the Auditor General. That is what we are talking about.

Just to get into a few more details, the Auditor General found that the fund gave $58 million to 10 ineligible projects that did not fall under the scope of what the fund was supposed to provide. They should not have received a penny, let alone almost $60 million. Of course, there was $334 million given to projects where board members had conflicts of interest. Notably, nine of the directors of the board had these 186 conflicts. They were very busy during the few years they were on that board.

Again, $58 million went to projects without ensuring contribution agreements were made. Not only were there conflicts of interest, but the Liberals were not even doing their due diligence on the ones who were not enriching themselves. It is just an utter mess. It shows no respect for the hard-earned taxpayer dollars the Liberals were just throwing out the door, with no regard for what it would mean to the ethical behaviour of government.

The Auditor General did quite interesting work here. Over a five-year period, there were 405 transactions approved by the board. The Auditor General sampled 226 transactions, so just over half, and found 186 conflicts, which ultimately works out to 82%. Therefore, 82% of the transactions she looked at were conflicts in which someone benefited from their own decision to sign over money. She made it very clear in her report that the blame for this scandal falls on the Liberal government's industry minister, who “did not sufficiently monitor” the contracts that were given to Liberal insiders.

Again, this fund was responsible for almost a billion dollars, but, according to the Liberals, they were not really paying attention. It is as if a billion dollars is the sort of change we would find in the bottom of a Liberal pocket and nothing to really be concerned about. Of course, now they have ground the House to a halt for two weeks because they are so concerned about it.

I want to talk a bit about some of the conflicts of interest that were found. They are quite interesting.

There was a board member named Andrée-Lise Méthot. She was appointed to the green slush fund in 2016. She runs a venture capital firm called Cycle Capital. We should remember that name. It is in the green technology field. I believe it is some sort of venture capital investment fund that gets investment dollars from government and elsewhere and then invests in other green technology companies and the like. Before and during Ms. Méthot's time on the board, her company received a quarter of a billion dollars in grants from the green slush fund to Cycle Capital. Some of that was before she was on the board, but while she was on the board, $114 million went to green companies that she had herself invested in. She personally approved this, enriching herself. She was appointed by the Liberals. Interestingly, during her time on the board, the value of Cycle Capital tripled. Again, it certainly pays to be a Liberal insider. It is no wonder; with a stamp of approval from the federal government, a company has gravitas, showing that it is a trustworthy company in a certain sense. Others can invest in it because the federal government has. Therefore, with these investments from taxpayers through the green slush fund, her company tripled in value.

I want to talk about some of the lobbyists for Cycle Capital because members may be familiar with them. I am sure we know who the environment minister is for the Liberal government. He is quite a notable or notorious, whichever word we choose to describe him, member of the Liberal cabinet. Before he was elected, he lobbied the Prime Minister's Office and the Department of Industry 25 times for Cycle Capital. At that time, Cycle Capital received $111 million. To his full credit, the minister was a very successful lobbyist for this company. Of course, when he was part of the company, he received shares for Cycle Capital, which he still holds today. That is good for him because the shares of that company have tripled in value in that time. It sure pays to be a Liberal insider. Again, it is reasonable to assume that he has made quite a bit of money. However, I think that what is very odd for taxpayers is the idea that a person can lobby the government dozens of times, bring in millions of dollars to a company, get elected and be at the cabinet table where these appointments are approved. Then, the people they know and used to lobby for go into this green slush fund and funnel more money to that company, and the shares in that company triple in value.

If any of the Canadians or Québécois watching are thinking about how they can get ahead in this economy, I do not know about other members, but I would say that all they have to do is start a tech company. As long as they are Liberal insiders, they can get hundreds of millions of dollars from the Liberal government. We are all in the wrong business if we want to get ahead in this country under the Liberals; they are doing a very good job lining their own pockets.

What is more interesting is that Ms. Méthot, the head of Cycle Capital, left the green slush fund in 2022 and went on to another Liberal board, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which members will be very familiar with. It is ultimately a failed board that has taken in billions of dollars to build infrastructure. I do not believe it has completed one project in the almost 10 years that the government has been in power and has been talking about this Infrastructure Bank. It has had a whole host of problems, such as CEOs coming and going. However, Ms. Méthot went over to that one after she approved all that money for her own company and others that she had financial interests in. While she was at the Infrastructure Bank, she voted to give $170 million to a company owned by the recent chair, Annette Verschuren, who was appointed to the green slush fund by the Prime Minister. They are all connected, these folks, all the Liberal insiders. It is a great little rich party of people taking a lot of taxpayer money. That is what I found when researching this topic.

Annette Verschuren was found guilty of giving her own company money when she was on that board. We had both the Auditor General and the Ethics Commissioner of Canada saying that this was not good. The Ethics Commissioner found Ms. Verschuren guilty of breaking ethics law; again, this is a running theme with the Liberal government. We know the Prime Minister himself was found guilty twice. Other Liberal ministers were also found guilty. Their friend, whom they appointed to the green slush fund, funnelled money from taxpayer dollars to her own company and, ultimately, was found guilty of doing so by the Ethics Commissioner. She broke the law. Her company also received $12 million from other government funds and $50 million from Natural Resources Canada.

When people ask how the Conservatives are going to fix the budget, this is how: The gravy train will come to an end for Liberal insiders. We are talking about $400 million. That is a good place to save taxpayers some money and look to balance the books. This happens time and time again. This is, by far, not the first time we are talking about a misuse of taxpayer dollars.

There really are a number of these very shady individuals, or maybe they are good individuals; they are certainly good at getting money for themselves when they get appointed to this board. There is another guy I will talk about just briefly because he is interesting. Guy Ouimet was on the board, and he admitted in committee testimony that $17 million of green slush fund money went to companies in which he held financial interest.

What was really interesting about this is that these people are so rich they do not even understand what $17 million is. He said that it was a small amount of money. Meanwhile, we have two million Canadians going to food banks, and Liberal insiders are saying, “Well, it's just a small amount of money. I don't know what the big deal is.” It is quite embarrassing. The value of that company, since it got government funds, went up 1,000%. It sure pays to be a Liberal insider.

How about the green slush fund director, Stephen Kukucha? He is from British Columbia. He was a political staffer to a former Liberal environment minister. He was also an organizer for the Liberal Party for the Prime Minister in British Columbia. As a reward, he got a board appointment to this green slush fund. During his time on the board, companies he held financial interest in received $5 million. Again, at committee, he also said, “That's just a small amount of money, not a big deal.” I am laughing because it is just so outrageous that millions of dollars would be seen as not a big deal. Again, it pays to be a Liberal insider.

We know Liberals are using a lot of different excuses for why they should not have to obey an order from Parliament. I wanted to get into a few of them. They talk about how the idea that Parliament will compel documents that may have the names of all the other people who have received money, which may really bring to light the magnitude of this beyond even what we know from the Auditor General, is a violation of their charter rights. Demanding the documents might hold people accountable for possibly defrauding the government or bringing corruption into the government, but there is the idea that Canadians have no right to know how taxpayer dollars were funnelled into these people's pockets.

If their names are on those papers and they are found to have defrauded the government, then they should be held accountable. That is really what this whole place is about. The reason we are not a dictatorship is not just that we go to the ballot box every few years and get to freely choose our governments, but it is also that we have a system of democratic principles, rules and procedures that hold power accountable. Ultimately, Parliament is supreme, and Parliament has ruled, demanded and ordered the production of these documents.

Again, what we are debating is that the privilege of the House was violated because the Liberal government refuses to hand over all the documents. Of those that they did hand over, many were blacked out, or redacted. Ultimately, the rules that govern parliamentary privilege are constitutionally on par with the charter. If Parliament rules that we need to see those documents, the Liberal government has to comply.

I found that argument interesting. It almost seems as if the Liberals sort of default to saying “the charter” whenever they are in trouble, as if the charter is supposed to protect Liberals from their own corruption. I do not think so. The debate will go on and on in this place until they obey the ruling of the House and, ultimately, of the Speaker.

Andrew Coyne actually said this really well today in The Globe and Mail. He said, “The right of Parliament to send for ‘persons, paper and things’ is one of the most ancient...parliamentary privileges. It is crucial to the Commons' ability to act as a check on the executive.” Again, the thing that is keeping us from a dictatorship is the fact that we have checks and balances on power.

I would ask that the Liberals be reminded that they have a constitutional responsibility to the checks on power that we apply to them. That is the reason we are all here. If they do not have to obey an order of Parliament, we might as well all just pack up and go home. We might as well let the Liberals be a dictatorship in which they can decide whatever they want.

The opposition parties in the House, collectively, are demanding these documents. The Liberals have a minority government, so they have to comply. The Speaker has ruled this. I do find that that argument is quite a dangerous territory for the Liberals. What are they suggesting? Are they suggesting that we have no rights as parliamentarians? Then what are we doing here?

They go on and on. They are using tons of different excuses. One of the ones I found funny is when they say that this fund existed under former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper, so how could we be criticizing it? The Auditor General herself looked at the green slush fund back in 2017, before it was a slush fund, and gave it a clean bill of health. Under Harper, it was well managed, but as soon the Liberals started to appoint the board members, that is when it went downhill. That is when Ms. Verschuren came into the picture and funnelled money to herself. She was found guilty of violating ethics laws, which is a running theme.

Before I conclude, I want to talk a bit about how the Liberals really do not have a leg to stand on. Even if this were the first time, it is unbelievable that we are talking about $400 million and the Liberals somehow do not have to give up the documents that Parliament has ordered. However, it is not the first time. This is a running pattern in the last nine years. I would like to talk about a few of those other instances.

Right when I was first elected, it was the WE Charity scandal. Do members remember that? It feels like a very long time ago, but that was a $1-billion scandal, where Liberals looked to give one billion taxpayer dollars to what was found to be quite a slimy organization that, prior to getting that $1 billion, promoted the Liberals at length, particularly the Trudeau family. The organization paid them money for various appearances. The former finance minister, Bill Morneau, was given a free trip, and I think his daughter received some sort of benefit. Therefore, a very tight-knit, almost fangirl-level organization to the Trudeau family was given $1 billion. That got so heated that summer that the Liberals prorogued Parliament just to avoid it, so maybe that is coming. Let us watch for that. If the Liberal government prorogues Parliament, then we know we have almost got them on something of true corruption because the same thing happened back in 2020.

Then, the following summer in 2021, we had the Winnipeg lab documents. For the first time in a century, an individual was called to the bar because Liberals were so desperate to avoid revealing the Winnipeg lab documents. There were two scientists from the Chinese Communist Party working in a high-ranking Winnipeg lab, who looked to be taking very secret information from Canada and who were marched out of that building. There were all these documents about it. The Liberals were so desperate to stop the public from finding out, they called a snap election. Therefore, they do not have a leg to stand on when they say, “We did nothing wrong. There is nothing to see here,” because we have seen this before. In fact, I could probably go on another 20 minutes about all the ethics violations of the government.

We, of course, remember the Aga Khan's billionaire island. Our Prime Minister loves his tropical vacations, and in December 2017, the Ethics Commissioner found he had violated ethics laws by taking a very hoity-toity fancy trip to a billionaire's tropical island with his family. That was just the first time.

Members will remember as well the second time, which was SNC-Lavalin. It was quite the scandal. The brave Jody Wilson-Raybould spoke out against the corruption she saw going on with the Prime Minister. He was found guilty of breaking an ethics law at that time. He was inappropriately pressuring the Attorney General. It was a very serious matter. In fact, the election that came a few months later was when the Prime Minister lost his majority and never recovered. The public has been really starting to see what is going on here.

We talk about $1 billion, $400 million and all these big numbers. What does that really mean to an individual person? I have a difficult time understanding how much $1 billion is. It is just such a shockingly high number. If we look at it, the average Canadian earns about $58,000 a year. Some earn more, and some earn less, but the average is about $58,000. In a two-parent household with two average incomes, that family pays, on average, about $18,000 in federal income tax. They work months of the year away from their families. They have to deal with office politics and all kinds of things to go to work. They have to pay their bills and support the public services, so they pay about $18,000 in federal taxes. Do members know how many families have to work an entire year to pay federal income tax so that Liberal insiders can enrich themselves with $390 million? Twenty-two thousand Canadian families had to work their butts off so Liberals could line their own pockets. That is unacceptable, and we are going to hold them accountable for it.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what I guess we could call a speech from my colleague opposite, and for those in the gallery, please be aware of what is going on here. This is mudslinging. This is a member trying to poison our parliamentary environment with a litany of I do not know what. The partisan jabs, we can take, but when a member of the House goes after institutions like the Auditor General and the RCMP federal investigative forces, that is beyond the pale.

They go after individuals. By the way, because it is not something that I do, I really do feel sorry for the member because she seems to be a talented person, yet she has been reduced to that. Annette Verschuren was actually a former adviser to Stephen Harper and, I believe, to Jim Flaherty—

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the member. I would ask members to keep their questions and comments to about one minute.

The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I seem to have touched a nerve with that member of Parliament, and I am sorry that she has to be part of a government that is so corrupt. I can understand why that is so upsetting. Faced with the facts, it would be hard to have any association with the Liberal government. I understand her angst.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals seem to be using the idea of handing documents over to the RCMP as a reason not to turn them over to the House, when the RCMP could simply choose not to look at the documents.

Our role here in the House differs from that of the RCMP. The RCMP has a criterion that focuses on the criminality of the acts done, whereas ours focuses on legitimacy. Our role is to hold the government accountable for its actions.

By hiding behind the RCMP, the government is preventing parliamentarians from doing their job. I would like my colleague to talk to us about this aspect.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is right. Our job in the House of Commons, as opposition parties, is to ensure that the government is held accountable.

The government should spend the money that hard-working taxpayers provide to government while ensuring that it is ethically used. As the member said, we have a role to hold the government accountable.

As I mentioned in my speech, this is what is so strange about the Liberals' response of wondering why the Conservatives are asking all these tough questions. They think we should not be doing this, but this is our very role. This entire place is built on the rules to hold power accountable. That is the entire point of parliamentary democracy. Without these powers to hold the executive accountable, we would be a dictatorship, so I am not sure if that is what they are advocating for, but we are fulfilling our duty here, and they should remember that.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I have a good working relationship on the public safety committee, and I will say that it is certainly nice to see her back. We have a very productive working relationship on that committee.

I have been listening to several days' worth of debate on this issue, and I suppose for me, and I say this with the greatest respect, I am at a point now where I am not hearing any new arguments being advanced from successive speakers. We are seeing a litany of the same talking points. What I am curious about is this: I am interested in getting to the action phase.

This, after all, is a Conservative motion. It has an amendment and a subamendment. I want to get to the point when we can execute that motion and get to the action part of this, rather than continuously talk it through. Maybe my colleague can illuminate the House as to when we will get to execute the terms of the motion, which was authored by the Conservatives.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to see and work with the member on the public safety committee. I do find him to be a respectable individual and highly intelligent.

It seems that NDP members are starting to drop little markers that they will be helping the Liberals bring this to an end. I do find that quite regrettable. Considering the powers of this place, and the Speaker's ruling, the Liberals have failed to supply the documents as they have been ordered to do. However, as soon as they get another party to support them, this can come to an end, and our ability to hold them accountable on this, on principle, will come to an end in that regard. It is important, and I would ask the NDP to stay firm on this. They are an opposition party. We have to ensure that we are continuing to bring this to light.

The Liberals should not be able to just do whatever they want to do without accountability. If they are able to kick this to some committee, they will try to bury it with procedure, and we will not hear about it anymore. I think that we stand firm, and we do whatever we can in the House, in this chamber, to hold them accountable. We will be here seven days a week to do that.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was really interested in the hon. member's speech. She referred to an article that was posted in The Globe and Mail by Andrew Coyne today. Some of the things that Andrew Coyne talked about were the supremacy of Parliament, the history of compelling documents to be produced and the supremacy of Parliament being paramount. He also talked about a decline in democracy, which is something we have been talking about over the last nine years, including a lack of respect for institutions, such as Parliament, the judiciary and other things.

I am wondering if the hon. colleague could cite some examples of the decline in democracy we have seen after nine years of the Liberal-NDP coalition.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I read that article as well, and I worry that Mr. Coyne is correct in that we are seeing what really amounts to a lack of respect for Parliament, for what we have been in power to do and for the privileges and power that we have as an opposition to hold the executive branch accountable.

Our House leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, did an excellent speech on the ancient parliamentary tradition that we have, which is what really provides the power of the opposition to hold the government accountable. He quoted quite an interesting book, The Power of Parliamentary Houses to Send for Persons, Papers and Records, and he really summed it up quite nicely. It reads, “Based on principles firmly established in constitutional parliamentary law...a House of parliament has the full authority to summon and compel the production of any document.”

However, the Liberal government is acting like it does not have to. We saw this with the WE Charity scandal, and we saw it with the Winnipeg lab document scandal. It is a running theme for the Liberals not respecting the will of Parliament, and it is shocking to see the demise of respect for parliamentary traditions.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to my friend for Kildonan—St. Paul, the first time that Canadians experienced a government refusing to send documents and creating a crisis was on the issue of the Afghan detainee documents and the refusal to provide documents, which then, of course, led to an election because the prime minister of the day did not send documents. Instead, he organized the fall of his own government, and that happened under Stephen Harper.

However, I am really worried because I agree with the essence of what the member for Kildonan—St. Paul said. I agree with the essence of the motion before us. The documents must be delivered, and we should be moving this to a study in committee.

The hon. member said that she has done all this research. I am looking for research, too. I urge my colleagues across the floor not to exaggerate because I agree with everything they are saying, except that I cannot find any evidence, even with the worst offences of conflict of interest under Annette Verschuren, to suggest that she is part of a Liberal insider clique. If there is such evidence, I would really like to hear it.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what we have to look at is all the members who were appointed to this board, and Annette Verschuren is one of them. She got very wealthy off of her own appointment, which cannot be ignored. If the Prime Minister approved her appointment, to me, that is someone who is in great favour. Being the chair of this was not nothing, and when she was there, that is when we saw a great decline of other Liberal insiders, some of whom I talked about, who she worked with on that board. She approved all of the money that went into their pockets as well as her own. I think the Liberal roots run very deep here and, ultimately, we will continue to hold the government accountable for the $390 million that went to Liberal insiders.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in debate to speak for the first time to the very important motion and question of parliamentary privilege before us.

Just as a bit of background, why are we here today? What are we debating? Basically, due to whistle-blower testimony from public servants, the Auditor General found that there were irregularities in the awarding of government grants with Sustainable Development Technology Canada, SDTC. Specifically, Liberal-appointed members of the board were awarded at least $330 million in 186 cases of conflict of interest and paid out another $59 million to companies without authorization, totalling approximately $389 million.

The Auditor General made it very clear that the issue falls under the Liberal minister of industry, who “did not sufficiently...monitor” the contracts that were given to insiders. The House of Commons supported the Conservative motion that called on the government, the SDTC and the Auditor General to hand over all the documents related to the scandal to the RCMP within 14 days.

The Liberal government refused to adhere to the will of Parliament and of Canadians. It has yet to hand over the documents to the RCMP. We can only assume that this is presumably to cover up the scandal. You ruled, Mr. Speaker, that this failure to adhere to the will of Parliament has constituted a breach of privilege, and therefore all business in the House is stalled until the Liberal government complies with your order.

I will give a little bit more background for viewers and listeners back home. The key mandate of SDTC was to federally fund non-profits, to approve and disperse over $100 million in funds annually to clean-technology companies. That was a very important role, something that had been ongoing for almost decades, I believe. It had a clean bill of health up until, I believe, the 2017-2018 time frame. It was an arm's-length body, not for profit, and was supposed to create and support projects that develop and demonstrate new technologies that address issues related to climate change, air quality, clean water and clean soil.

However, there were problems, some of which I have already highlighted. The executive appointees were awarded projects that had conflicts of interest. They all started around 2019 under the then Liberal industry minister, Navdeep Bains. He began appointing conflicted executives to the board, and then those board members began voting for companies in which the executives themselves had active conflicts of interest.

The Auditor General and the Ethics Commissioner initiated and conducted separate investigations. This is when a number of whistle-blowers came forward and the Auditor General found a severe lack in governance standards and uncovered the scandal.

I will get to the crux of the matter. Mr. Speaker, you ordered that the documents be turned over. The power of the House is greater than any one act, yet unfortunately the PCO decided to tell the departments to redact the documents. As a result, in our view and in your own view, there was a breach of our privileges. That is why we are debating today. That is the background.

I want to take a slightly different approach for the remainder of my speech. I thought that if I were going to give a speech on this, I should ask my constituents for their feedback. I am here at the behest of 115,000 constituents in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I decided that I would send an email out to them and hopefully get back some interesting feedback. I sent that out just Wednesday afternoon.

As of nine o'clock this morning, I had received 436 email responses back giving feedback on the issue, 210 in the first four hours alone, 357 within the first 12 hours and the remainder since. I asked just two simple questions. Those who follow me on social media know that I am not the biggest social media person. I do not have a massive following, but about 5,000 constituents in my riding subscribe to a monthly e-newsletter that I put out, and those were the people to whom the questions were sent out.

I asked two simple questions. The first was whether the Liberal government should turn over the SDTC documents to the House and to the RCMP and comply with your will, Mr. Speaker. The second was whether any of the Liberal insiders who are found guilty of illegitimately receiving the funds should have to pay the money back to the taxpayers?

I am going to read some of the responses into the record. There are dozens I could not use because the language did not meet the parliamentary language standard. Hopefully the ones I have put in my speech do, but I will do my best. I may have to think on my feet and paraphrase some of the comments.

Brian from Meaford said, “The Liberal government must turn over the SDTC documents to the RCMP for their criminal investigation and comply with Parliament's will. The Liberal insiders who were awarded contracts through the SDTC by illegitimate means must repay the grant money they received to taxpayers.”

Carol in Owen Sound said, “Yes, I feel that the Liberal government should hand over the documents. Not doing so in a timely manner only leads us to assume their guilt. Yes, insiders awarded contracts illegitimately should have to pay back any monies received.”

Hillary from Owen Sound said, “Yes...and this isn't the first time this government has been caught in a scandal and giving our tax dollars to insiders and friends; i.e. the WE scandal comes to mind but I know there were more.”

Janet said, “I do believe they should have to turn over documents and be treated like anyone else in the country. If they broke the law they need to be punished just like anyone else. Yes, I think they should have to pay back all the money. All Liberals know how to do is take our tax dollars and line their own pockets while people drown and lose everything they have.”

Bob said, “I have watched all the committee videos where these fraud-related matters were discussed including that with the very credible whistle-blower. I look forward to your pressing Parliament to take action on the points raised. House of Commons debates are very interesting currently as the government tries various smear tactics.”

Gladys said, “Yes to both questions. I am tired of Governments never considering whose money they are using. They were voted in by the taxpayers, but feel they can spend that money without giving careful consideration to how that money is being spent. We the taxpayers are the employers, if you will, and the government the employees. Therefore, your ‘bosses’ are telling you to have more consideration concerning the spending of our money. It is not yours to be careless with.

“I am almost 75 years old and I am tired of always having to watch my spending while governments just seem to throw it away. Why bother voting these people in, [just to] have the taxpayers' and citizens' best interest [ignored].”

That is really important, and one of my points when I conclude will be that the risk we have when the government is not complying with the will of Parliament and the Speaker's ruling is that it is undermining the trust Canadians have in our democratic institutions.

I will continue with the quotes. Bryan said, “In my opinion, all political parties in our Canadian government, whether they are the governing party or parties in opposition, must be transparent in their dealings with Parliament, with the other political parties and most importantly in their dealings with third parties whether at arm's length or not, especially when dealing with government...monies. Therefore the SDTC documents must be turned over to the RCMP immediately.

“Any illegitimate contracts must be returned to the Canadian people immediately as well. You can remind everyone just how quickly all the hard-working people were threatened if they did not return any CERB overpayments they received during the COVID crisis.”

Warren said, “I have been a purchasing agent for 30 years and I have never seen such blatant corruption in our government.

“No one, and I mean no one, would be able to get away with this in the private sector.”

Stephen said, “First of all, all documents need to be turned over immediately. I am very familiar with working in these environments and with process and procedures. I have been personally certified for government contracts within the secrecy act and understand completely the mess that has been created here, and in many respects, how basic it is to follow common sense guidelines, rules, regulations, etcetera. You may not like the more stringent requirements, but they are there for a reason.

“One only has to look at ArriveCAN. How much more of a mess do we need to see? How do we get from an $80-thousand app to $64 million spent? All funding granted to Liberal insiders needs to be returned to the government coffers and used for good and proper actions to benefit all taxpayers.”

Don said, “The judicial system in [government] is slowly and continuously being eroded and these types of situations do not look good.”

Randy, and I do not know whether it is the “other Randy” or which Randy it is, said, “I do believe the government should hand over all material related to this matter, and also the members of the party that had knowledge of the illegal activities should be held accountable in so far as to say they should lose their jobs and pension. The Liberal insiders who received the money should be made to pay back every cent plus interest.”

Meghan said, “I would say yes to both of your questions. If the Liberal government did nothing wrong, they should have no issues in handing over documentation that is being asked for. We should be able to trust the government that is running our country and they should be held accountable if there is wrongdoing. Any grants should be paid back in full if there was insider information involved.”

Greg said, “The fact that they are not turning over any and all related documentation as requested, and their transparent ploy to issue the documents in a redacted state, leaves every citizen with half a clue as to what is currently going on in our country with the distinct impression they are trying to hide a long-standing misuse if not outright theft of taxpayer money.

“As my representative in Parliament, [talking about me,] I would fully expect you to use what ever pull you have within the party to hold them to account.”

This is from Richard: “Yes, absolutely, documents should be turned over. [The Prime Minister] promised in 2015 that his government would be fully transparent with Canadians, and to date I have not seen any transparency from this government, only scandal after scandal. It seems [the Prime Minister] and his government think they are above the law and somehow believe Canadians are happy with his performance This is unacceptable. What are they hiding?”

Peter said, “I have been following this scandal in the committee meetings and I am greatly concerned about the Liberals' actions, or in this case, lack thereof, with regard to handing over the documents. What are they hiding? This situation needs to be investigated thoroughly and those responsible should held to account, and if criminality is evident they should be charged. They are not above the law.”

This is from Les: “Certainly as a private business, if the government requests additional information for my personal tax audit, I have no option but to comply. They should be under that same requirement. If they're not trying to hide something, turning over that information shouldn’t be a big deal!”

Paul said, “This Liberal government does what it wants. Breaking laws, violating the Constitution, or, this time, breaching privilege, is business as usual for them. And they get away with it virtually every time with simply a slap on the wrist.”

Todd said, “The Liberal government that ran on being open and honest should be held accountable for their actions. The money that was given out should be returned and an investigation done by the RCMP.

“This is probably just the tip of the iceberg.”

Ryan said, “Over the past several years as more and more corruption has been discovered within our current government, it seems as though our parliamentary system is broken as no sitting members of this government have been held to account for their various breaches of trust.”

This is from Kevin: “I'd have to say that I am not at all surprised by this type of conduct. It seems to be a regular occurrence with this government, whether it be single-source contracts or contracts to companies or individuals with whom there is ownership or family members involved.

“Like the Auditor General stated, there are numerous conflicts of interest. Our current Prime Minister seems to think rules only apply to others and not himself or his circle of friends and caucus members.”

This is from Stephen: “My response is common sense and would be an absolute yes to both of your questions. I can’t believe we (Canadians) are dealing with items of this nature; it's a huge conflict of interest. Actually, it’s potentially criminal.

“These ministers are acting like they were appointed weeks ago, and we both know this isn’t correct. They know it’s wrong, and if proven guilty they should be removed from their position.

“When you [he is referring to me] were CO 2 RCR, if you were responsible for this, you would have been removed from your position.”

Kameron from Georgian Bluffs said, “The Liberal government absolutely needs to be compelled to turn over unredacted documents for an RCMP investigation. Their conduct has been disturbing in how they've responded to this, alleging that somehow the majority of the House is infringing on Canadians' charter rights by demanding they be accountable for how millions of our tax dollars have been misappropriated to enrich corporations that were never meant to receive them.

“All ineligible recipients of government grants and contracts should be made to repay those funds. Especially at a time when so many Canadians are suffering under ever-growing inflation, pushed even further by the growing carbon tax, it is of the utmost importance that taxpayer dollars be spent appropriately and recovered when we learn that they've been misused.

“The misconduct we've witnessed between the various SDTC misuses of money, the ArriveCAN scandal and the laundry list of fiscal irresponsibility and culture of lacking accountability in this Liberal government has permeated and metastasized within the bureaucracy of the federal public service. The negative examples at the top have done so much damage that there is an incredible amount of work to be done to rebuild public trust in our government infrastructure. Your motion is, at the very least, one step in the right direction.”

Mary from Meaford said, “The Liberal government should turn over the SDTC documents to the RCMP...and comply with the will of Parliament. The Liberal insiders who are awarded contracts through the SDTC by illegitimate means should be ordered to repay the grant money they received to taxpayers.”

This is from Dave: “Both answers are yes. Accountability needs to be mandated, as the Liberals do not do it on their own. Repay the grants and, if there is availability, a penalty, either monetary or not being able to submit for contracts for a time specified or both.”

Keith and Lisa from Owen Sound said, “Absolutely, yes to this question. If the Liberal government had nothing to hide, they would turn the documents over. As taxpayers, we have the right to know how and where our money is being spent. I would also agree that the Liberal insiders who received this money should pay it back. The current Liberal government has lacked transparency for quite some time on a number of issues. I appreciate the opportunity to share my voice in this matter.”

Dave said, “Yes, all papers must be handed over unredacted and all money must be returned. This corruption must stop.”

Vicky from Barrow Bay said, “In a nutshell, I will keep it simple: In this household, we are tired of the corruption. We're tired of the Liberals playing silly games for their benefit. We need to find the truth. We want accountability and if there are criminal charges involved, people should be charged. I will leave you to articulate in a manner you need to, but enough is enough.

“I have been following this situation in the independent media fairly closely. Thank you for the extensive transcripts.”

Lorraine from West Grey said, “Yes. I am, though, disappointed the word ‘redacted’ did not appear in the motion. I am also disappointed this measure has not been implemented by the people via our representatives in the House of Commons concerning other scandals we have seen in which the government failed to produce or only produced heavily redacted documents. My position is that we should turn over the documents to the law clerk then the RCMP. It is every citizen's duty, if they are aware of possible illegal activity, to report it with or without documentation to the police. The House of Commons is acting on behalf of the Canadian citizens and is engaged in the same process we are all to consider doing.

“Yes, I am a firm believer in restitution in the application of justice, where possible. Money can be requested in this situation, I believe. It would be part of a just decision. It would also help Canadians regain some trust in the justice system and in government.”

This is from Ingrid: “Should the Liberal government turn over the SDTC documents to the RCMP for their criminal investigation and comply with the will of Parliament? Absolutely and immediately. In what other business can an employee refuse to comply with the management's orders?

“If the Liberal government refuses to immediately hand over the requested information, this information should be seized by whatever force necessary by the RCMP or other appropriate agency. Those refusing to co-operate should be immediately released from their positions due to ethical, if not criminal, breaches.

“Why are we tolerating such corruption and insolence on the part of officials who are elected by the people and for the people?”

Mel from Owen Sound said, “Absolutely, the Liberals need to hand over the documents and any wrongdoers need to be held accountable and to repay the money.”

This is from Paul in Grey County: “Liberals are working against Canadian citizens, and the RCMP has a duty to investigate all the crimes and charge them. They also have to repay all the illegitimate money back.”

This is from Garnet: “This government is corrupt...and the people of Canada must remove them from power before our country becomes a totalitarian entity and democracy is dead. Please continue to bring attention to this kind of corruption and waste of our tax dollars.

“I'm not very proud of our country under the [Liberal] regime. We are in danger of becoming a banana republic, and it's too cold to even grow bananas here in Canada.”

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do thank my hon. colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for the banana republic without benefit of fruit; it is a good one.

The hon. member and I do not usually get a chance to exchange with each other in Hansard, and I want to thank him from the bottom of my heart for the work that we and a number of other MPs have been doing together to try to do the right thing by former members of the Afghan Parliament, who are women who are now, and have been, on the run for their lives. The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound is one of the finest people I have ever had the privilege to work with.

I would ask the member if there is any way he can see that we could get this to committee faster. Yes, it would go faster if the government sent all the documents, but we surely have enough now, given the Auditor General's report and the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development auditor report, to drill down, call witnesses and get to work in committee.

Is there a way to compromise on this motion?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my kudos back to the member and the other four members; we all work together to help these former Afghan women MPs. It is an important cause we all believe in, and there is power when we can come to a consensus on things going forward.

To get to the crux of her question, I am not aware of any other way to get this resolved quickly, unless the government turns over those documents.

The second aspect of this, and I know the member believes in this wholeheartedly too, is that this is only the first time I have gotten to speak to this motion. I have 450 constituents who provided me feedback in less than two days. I am sure that when I look around the chamber, there are lots of other colleagues who would like the opportunity to speak to this very important issue that their constituents care about. We need to end the corruption.

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

Mr. Speaker, I came from my riding of Saint John—Rothesay to Ottawa to do work on behalf of Canadians. We have literally been tied up and not doing work on behalf of Canadians for the better part of two weeks now. People in my riding are asking me why we are not getting to work on behalf of all Canadians. I am also here to talk about dental care, pharmacare and other great initiatives that we are doing.

The member opposite talked about silly games. I am asking him when the Conservatives are going to stop the silly games and let us get back to work on behalf of all Canadians.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I sat on a committee with the other member briefly in the past. I actually think lots of work is getting done in the committees. I get lots of work done every day in Ottawa when I am here.

The reason we are not getting any further debate or issues dealt with in government business is wholeheartedly that the government refuses to comply with the Speaker's order. This could all be over tomorrow if the government would just turn over the documents. If the member had listened to my response to the previous question, he would know it is our right and privilege to answer questions or to speak on behalf of our constituents and contribute to the debate. This is the first time I have had a chance to give a speech on this very important matter of privilege.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, “I remember” is the motto of Quebeckers. This morning, I would like my colleague to remember certain events. He talked about Liberal government corruption and lack of transparency. I want to go back in history because it is important to remember what happened.

The Conservative Party claims to be the party of common sense, transparency, of fighting corruption in this world. However, when the Conservatives were in power, they diverted funds. I would remind my colleague that former Conservative minister Tony Clement, diverted not $10 million, not $20 million, not $30 million, not $40 million, but $50 million to his riding during the G8 summit.

He does not remember, this morning. I would also like to remind him of the questions of privilege that his government did not comply with at the time. The Conservative government did not produce the documents during the Afghan detainee transfer scandal. There was also the Senate expenses scandal, the robocall affair, and omnibus Bill C‑38 to implement budget 2012.

I have a simple question for my colleague. How are Quebeckers supposed to have confidence in a potential future Conservative government when the Conservatives have such a poor record?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not support or stand for corruption, ever. I was not part of a former Conservative government. I will not speak to and cannot speak to any corruption. I do not have the background knowledge to speak to every single case. The Afghan detainee file is one, though, that I will speak to. That was not a case of corruption. There were allegations. There was parliamentary debate. An ad hoc committee was formed. In the end, tens of thousands of pages were reviewed by members across different parties, and they found nothing.

That is not the case here. This, right now, is a case of $390 million of taxpayers' money that has been spent improperly. There are 186 conflicts—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I hate to interrupt the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, but he will have three minutes and about 30 seconds left in questions and comments when this question of privilege debate resumes.

Public Safety

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the attacks on journalists who report on Khalistani extremism in Canada.

A few days back, Rishi Nagarin of Red FM Calgary was severely attacked. In March 2023, Sameer Kaushal of Radio AM600 in Richmond, B.C., was assaulted for covering a Khalistani protest. In February 2022, Brampton radio host Deepak Punj was attacked in his studio for criticizing Khalistani-related violence. Anti-terrorism investigative journalist Mocha Bezirgan has received death threats for his fearless reporting on Khalistani extremism.

There are many more attacks in the greater Toronto area and across Canada by Khalistani extremists. I call on law enforcement agencies to take notice of Khalistani extremism with all the seriousness it deserves. It has to be dealt with with an iron hand before it is too late.

Carbon Tax

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to shed a public spotlight on what Canadians are already feeling in their wallets. The “food professor”, Sylvain Charlebois of Dalhousie University, has forecast that inflationary pressures, including the carbon tax, on the growing, processing and transporting of food will increase the cost of wholesale food for Canadians by 34% by 2025.

Food affordability is becoming out of reach for many Canadians, while our U.S. counterparts are paying 36.8% less for wholesale food. Why? Well, here could be the reason. This week, Canada's budget watchdog confirmed that the carbon tax will cost Ontario families another $903, in part due to the rising carbon tax on food.

Canadian parents should not have to choose between feeding their kids a bag of chips and a veggie tray. When costs go up, time is up. When will the government axe the tax and restore Canada to a nation where healthy food is not a luxury?

Anniversary of International Development Organizations

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 50th anniversary of three unique international development organizations: the Manitoba Council for International Cooperation, the Alberta Council for Global Cooperation and the Saskatchewan Council for International Cooperation.

For 50 years, these councils have been more than just partners in international development. They have been the architects of change by engaging youth, training educators and strengthening civil society to tackle some of the world's most pressing challenges.

I have met some of the people who have benefited from their work. Whether it is using music therapy for healing, solar-powered breast pumps or digital education, their innovative programs are changing lives. Through their work, so many Canadians have been informed, inspired and involved in creating a more just and equitable world.

I wish them a happy 50th anniversary.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2015, the Liberals promised people a major employment insurance reform. They promised to give everyone better access to EI, to take into account seasonal industries, to protect self-employed workers and to put an end to discrimination against women.

Nine years later, it is clear that nothing has been done. The Liberals once again dragged their feet and failed workers. That is why a historic coalition among the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses, the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi and the major unions in Quebec is standing up and calling on the government to make these long-awaited changes in the very near future.

One of those changes involves putting an end to the discrimination that disproportionately affects women. If a person's job is eliminated while they are on parental leave or soon after, that person no longer has access to regular benefits. That means that some 3,000 women are denied employment insurance benefits every year.

Will the Liberals take action to defend the rights of these working women?