Debates of Oct. 11th, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is beside that point, as the heckles come from NDP members. They are obviously very worried about their own positions.

What we are talking about is essentially the theft or misappropriation of about $400 million of Canadian taxpayer funds, which went to a green slush fund that was loaded with Liberal cronies, like the Liberal chair, who got rich. The Auditor General found 186 conflicts of interest, and the whistle-blower found, indeed, that there might be some criminality there. The Liberals like to say that the RCMP does not want to see these documents, but the RCMP does not know what is in these documents. Nobody does because they have been redacted.

If somebody stole something from the member, would he go to a committee or would he go to the RCMP? I ask because essentially what we are talking about is the theft of Canadian taxpayer funds.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes a great point. Indeed, this is theft, and it is not just us who are saying this. The independent auditor has said it. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has raised deep concerns about it too.

Indeed, we as the opposition would not be doing our job if we were not holding the government to account on what looks like scandalous behaviour, probably criminal behaviour. We need to get to the bottom of it. I just wish the Liberal side of the House would work with us to get to the bottom of it.

The Liberals say they do not like corruption either. Well, they can work with us. Let us have a look at what these documents say. Let us give them to the RCMP and let it decide how to prosecute.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are being accused of abuse of power. The Conservatives are also ignoring the RCMP, an independent agency and institution. That is what we know. The Conservatives are playing a political game here, and that is unfortunate. They are more concerned about the Conservative Party of Canada than they are about the citizens of Canada.

When will they get their priorities right, start focusing on what is in the best interests of Canadians, as opposed to the Conservative Party, and start listening to the RCMP, the Auditor General, the former law clerk and the former deputy commissioner of the RCMP?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, really, the Liberals should be listening to what Parliament has told them to do. Parliament is supreme. Parliament has the right to make these types of orders.

Talking about abuse of power, let us talk about the invocation of the Emergencies Act. That was an abuse of power. The courts have ruled on that.

The Liberals have nothing to be proud of. They are the ones who should be taking good legal advice.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to give our hon. colleague just one more brief opportunity to talk about the scandalous nature of the government.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are all getting very tired of it. I see that the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound is gone, but he had many quotes from many constituents who are sick and tired of the corruption from the government. In my riding, it is the same thing.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I became a parliamentarian, first as the member for Red Deer, and now as the representative of the great riding of Red Deer—Mountain View, I spent 34 years as a high school math and physics teacher. As such, I always felt that, when dealing with problems, it is critical to be concise and to work with undeniable facts. This is a task that we have at hand in the House, a task that the House has seized over a grievous disservice to the Canadian public. We must continue to go forward until this grievous matter has been rightfully resolved.

However, of course, whether or not this can be resolved remains to be seen as the Liberal government thinks it can gaslight Canadians into believing that somehow enabling corruption protects Canadians. Let me be on the record today saying that this government's reaction to the production order of the Speaker shows that they are only interested in protecting those who have been the benefactors of nine years of corruption, irresponsible deficits and dishonesty to the Canadian taxpayer.

The people of Red Deer—Mountain View and I have seen enough. Here is what we are up against: What do we get when we have significant lapses in governance and stewardship of public funds, plus poor management over conflicts of interest and non-compliance with the law? We get corruption, plain and simple. This is the root cause of the case we, as His Majesty's official opposition and as servants to Canadians, are prosecuting today.

The Auditor General found all those ingredients for corruption in a blistering report released this past summer. I have spent many years sitting on the public accounts committee, and since the time of Sheila Fraser, I have had the greatest respect for the officials who work at the Auditor General's office. What they have uncovered is mind-boggling.

As a teacher, whenever my students were tasked with solving a difficult physics problem, they had to show their work, and when the first steps became clear, they could more easily progress through to the next stage of the solution. Students had to show how they came up with an answer to the problems they were attempting to solve, and this gets more challenging the more difficult and complex the problem becomes, but in that way, basic truths allow them to analyze and solve more complicated questions.

I will acknowledge that managing the federal government of Canada is not an easy task. Overseeing how we will feed Canadians and our allies around the world, how we will safeguard the value of Canadian sovereignty and citizenship, and how we will have secure, reliable and affordable energy for all Canadians is indeed a complex venture, but these federal departments that we rely on must build upon trust and truth. It is all the more an indictment on this government that they are unwilling to show their work and fulfill an order from the House to produce the documents, as the Speaker has decreed. This government clearly did not comply.

If we are supposed to tell our children, our youth, the bright young minds of the future, that they need to show their work when solving their math homework, why on earth is our federal government not able to do the same? I have a suggestion as to why. Maybe it has to do with the reality that they are so caught up in their its attempts to cling to power that it will ignore House orders to procure documents on the failed glorified slush fund and will overlook what Canadians coast to coast already see when they tune in to their federal legislature, which is that this government has lost control of the House and must accept the reality that Canada is ready for a change, a change for the better, a change that will do away with scandal after scandal.

In the Auditor General's report I mentioned earlier, it is made clear that Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, did not establish clear assessment guidance to determine eligibility of projects, so let us allow that to sink in. According to SDTC's website, as of March 31, 2023, they had given out $1.71 billion in funding. The words “assessments guidance to determine eligibility of projects” is fancy talk for how decisions are made to give money to projects and businesses.

It is absolutely ridiculous that a federally funded foundation, under the current government's watch, was able to hand out taxpayer dollars without a clear idea of who ought to be deserving of those funds to achieve the objectives its organizations were established to fulfill. It is no different from a football team paying a coach to run plays and make decisions without the notion of a playbook. The idea that taxpayer dollars were allowed to be played with in this manner is unacceptable and frankly disturbing.

To better illuminate the gravity of the situation, I will once again draw on my teaching experience. Let us all put ourselves in the shoes of a grade 11 high school student who is beginning to complete what teachers sometimes call an independent research project. For an independent research project, usually students are tasked with coming up with a topic to study, but the important role of the teacher is to give students a framework with which they will be able to structure their assignment and therefore use their findings effectively. Without an assignment structure or grading criteria, students are left with little to go on. Do we want federally funded foundations to be in the habit of having little to go on?

What I am trying to highlight by drawing out these parallels with what we take for granted as common sense in a classroom, is that these classroom experiences often seem to be very similar to what happens in the real world. Perhaps this is by design. That is why I am trying to paint a picture for Canadians, those whom have had the pleasure of teaching and all of us here in the House.

The Auditor General also found that SDTC poorly managed conflicts of interest. This, my colleagues, is really where I struggle to find any sort of solace from the Liberal government's response to this scandal. SDTC records show that conflict of interest policies were not followed in 90 cases and that SDTC did not report conflicts of interest. I would say this is shocking, but it is on par with what we and Canadians have now come to expect from our current government, and this is a shame.

There is an obvious reality that, for Canada to be the greatest country on earth, we need a new government that respects the rights of Canadians, has integrity and possesses a strong commitment to principles. It would seem that this no longer is the case after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government. Back in the day, to their credit, Liberals stayed true to their word and would aim to avoid such scandals, although the Gomery inquiry shook their confidence so many years ago. However, today, those actions are commonplace and feel as though they are just a matter of daily business. True Liberals are now fleeing a party that has now become a shadow of its former self.

I am a firm believer that humility is a virtue, and a particularly valuable one for an elected representative of the people. Is it not common sense for us? Is it not common sense for decision-makers of a fund to recuse themselves from an investment decision regarding a firm they have clear ties to? I am sure it must be challenging to conduct this practice when the fund in question is both funded by the Liberal government and when that are also in talks with firms that have strong insider connections to their network. Therefore, I ask again, would it not be common sense to do what is best for the fund's performance and, in this case, the value for money received from Canadian taxpayer dollars? If it is as I suspect, then why has there been a failure to implement such an obvious standard for a federally funded foundation that had used at least $1 billion in taxpayer funds?

I would like to let those who are listening now know that it was common-sense Conservatives who fought against the corrupt government after nine years, and common-sense Conservatives would work diligently to undo the mess that this has caused our nation.

I have already pointed out that the Auditor General had serious concerns with this glorified green slush fund. I would also like to bring it all together to a final point, and this goes back to what fundamentally shapes government. It is people. The former chair of SDTC had to resign as she was found to have improperly furthered the interests of companies associated with her own ventures according to the Ethics Commissioner. This is not right.

The Ethics Commissioner also found that this individual participated in funding decisions that benefited her own financial interests. The SDTC staff even tried to raise concerns with the staff of ISED and its minister at the time, but their concerns were ultimately dismissed. No one knows why these concerns were dismissed, but I can tell members one thing: Innocent, hard-working Canadians have been caught in the crosshairs of this mess.

On this side of the House, and I believe I speak for my colleagues, we believe in fair and just prosecution. I believe the inability of the Liberal government and a select elite few, who are calling the shots in agencies and foundations that are supposed to be at arm's length, does not reflect everyone involved. However, that is truly the saddest part of it all. Everywhere the government has gone and touched with its paws, it has sown disorder and distrust and broken the fabric that holds this country together.

The Liberal government has lost control of its spending. In 2015, it promised that it would only be in a deficit temporarily. This is a claim that, as outgoing prime minister, Stephen Harper called out from the beginning, and it is a claim that has cost many young Canadians affordable gas, affordable food and a warm place to call home.

Of course, it is on the Liberals that they have lost the humility to produce documents that would hold them to account, even when the Speaker of the House rules that this contradicts what would be in the best interests of Canadians. I will say once again what I said at the beginning of my remarks: Enough is enough. The Liberal government has a history of legislative manoeuvring that it uses to avoid accountability. Many believed the rhetoric of the need for a COVID election back in 2021, but the reality is that it was caught up in a scandal then as well. That scandal involved it not wanting to provide documents for the Winnipeg lab fiasco. Of course, by calling an election, it could and did put that controversy behind it, at least for a while. A $600-million cabinet shuffle during a pandemic election was all it took to take the heat off the fact that the Speaker had moved to the next steps of controversy and taken the government to court. Whether the current Speaker takes similar steps remains to be seen, but the pattern is clear. Maybe proroguing Parliament will shift the focus, but when Parliament resumes after such a move, this matter still needs to be resolved.

To remind Canadians of where we were in June 2021, I will read from a press release pointing out the defiance of the government when it came to releasing documents:

The [hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills], Conservative Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, and [the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent], the House Leader of the Official Opposition, issued the following statement after the House adopted a fourth order requiring the [Liberal] government to hand over documents regarding the transfer of a dangerous virus from the Winnipeg National Microbiology Laboratory to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the subsequent firing of two government scientists....

The statement reads:

Yesterday, the Speaker of the House ruled the Liberal government in breach of three orders of the House and its Special Committee on Canada-China Relations by continuing to cover-up the Winnipeg lab breach. These orders require the government to hand over documents related to the Winnipeg lab and its work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The [Liberal] government's defiance of these orders demonstrates a complete lack of respect for Parliament and smacks of a cover-up.

On June 2, the House adopted a motion ordering the government to hand over documents regarding the transfer of viruses from the Winnipeg lab to the Wuhan lab in March 2019 and the subsequent firing of two government scientists in January 2021. This June 2 order followed two previous orders from the Special Committee of March 31 and May 10.

Despite these orders, the Liberals continue to defy Parliament and cover-up information about these breaches of national security. It is appalling to see just how far they will go to defy Parliament and cover up details about the Winnipeg lab and its relationship with the Wuhan lab.

Conservatives have once again demanded the [Liberal] government release the documents they are hiding from Canadians so that Parliament can get to the bottom of this and ensure these breaches of national security do not happen again. However, the Liberals continue their cover-up by voting against a motion upholding the Speaker's ruling demanding the documents.

Now, for the fourth time, the House has ordered the [Liberal] government to hand over the documents. We expect the Prime Minister...to comply with this lawful order.

It further stated that:

It's time the Liberals end their cover-up. It's time for the Liberals to release these documents and be transparent with Canadians. Canadians deserve to know the truth about what happened at the Winnipeg lab and the breaches of national security. Canada's Conservatives are fighting to protect our national security.

As I said, these things have happened before. Now, there is another aspect of this that warrants more scrutiny.

I have a great deal of respect for Canadian innovators. The technology that has been supported since Sustainable Development Technology Canada was established in 2001 has been a constructive part of Canada's research and development mix. This government's obsession with green technology and the narrow scope that it has showed lately to such technology is defined, along with the now obvious lack of discipline by the board, which gives true meaning to the green slush fund.

What the AG found, and what committee members have dug up, is that 82% of funding transactions approved by the board over a five-year sampling period were said to be conflicted. Through the AG's analysis of 226 contracts, 186 were conflicted, and so it is entirely possible that the total 405 transactions approved by the board and the corresponding 333 contracts could also be suspect. If the ratios were correct, there would be a further 147 suspicious contracts. A federal investigation would need to get started really soon to get to the bottom of this, since this entire affair reeks of corruption.

If laws were broken and rules were ignored, then this government must get to the bottom of this. If CERB recipients were forced to return money that they were not entitled to, then I see no reason for an exception here. Canadians expect the truth, and they expect those who circumvented the rules to return the money.

This government needs to get to the bottom of this scandal, and it is time to give Canadians what they want. They want accountability from this government. They want to see what is in these documents that the Liberals wish to hide so desperately from the public, and Canadians cannot wait for the chance to bring back responsible governance to the true north, strong and free. We owe it to Canadians.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. He is a former math and physics teacher, and I wish I could ask him questions regarding the quality of our math and physics education in our school system today. In my opinion, our students are falling behind in math and physics compared to their counterparts in many parts of the world, and this is affecting our competitiveness in the global, knowledge-based economy.

I want to acknowledge that the member's speech had less political rhetoric compared to those of many of his colleagues, although I disagree with many of the things he said. Specifically, being a member of the public accounts committee, I share with him the respect that we both have for the Office of the Auditor General. However, the Auditor General has expressed a concern on the blurring of the powers between different parts of the government, and the RCMP has specifically said in a letter to the law clerk of the House of Commons that it is very unlikely that it can use the records that this motion would provide to it in its investigation.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have certainly enjoyed my time on the industry committee and other committees that I have sat on with the hon. member. When he speaks about math and science education, I do remember when we were in Centre Block that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom had come to speak. He said that the greatest mathematics and mathematicians that he had seen in the English-speaking world were actually from Alberta. As I had just come from teaching there, I was pretty proud of it, although I certainly did not suggest that I was going to take any credit for that.

However, to get to the point about the Auditor General and the responsibility that she has, I think it is very important that we respect the rulings that she is dealing with, and we go from there.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's speech about financial accountability was very passionate. New Democrats often are found in the interesting position of striving for financial accountability. No matter what government is in place, the Conservatives seem to care about financial accountability only when it means scoring partisan points.

However, in an interesting part of the member's speech, he mentioned a Liberal insider. I am sure he was referring to Ms. Verschuren, the former chair of SDTC who was kicking back millions of dollars to her own company. That individual happens to have donated to the Conservative Party for almost her entire time as chair of SDTC, maxing out donations to the Conservative Party.

How much money does the member think Ms. Verschuren donated in total to the Conservative Party that she was maybe or likely getting during the time she was the chair of SDTC?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is somewhat mistaken. It is true that, as a Cape Bretoner, Ms. Verschuren supported some Liberal candidates, but if the member wants to take a look at her most recent donations, they were in fact to the Liberal Party. However, that is fine. It is what a person does when they have power that counts, and that is the key component here. Sometimes people suggest that there is great money in politics and so on, but $1,600 is the maximum donation. It is not like anyone can get big money from companies.

That is not particularly the point. It is what a person does when they have an appointment that counts, and that is where the problem lies.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see you in the chair this afternoon. I appreciate what you do.

Some of us are a little bit longer in the tooth. The hon. member is my colleague both by profession and as an MP, and he might remember the Gomery commission, as I do. I think we spent considerable time talking about the lost $40 million, until finally the media paid attention and there was the Gomery commission. However, the present issue is many more times significant than that. It involves many more dollars, and it is about not only this one instance, but many.

My colleague knows the history. He is an ethical gentleman and believes in honesty. How would he respond to the question of the significance of the amount of money that we are talking about with the current issue?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course, when we are looking at nearly $400 million that is questionable and we realize that it was spent without following the rules, it puts every dollar that was given by the SDTC into question. That, I think, is the sad part of all of this: Everyone has been painted with a tainted brush. As I mentioned in my remarks, I am a firm believer in innovation. I think that is where we should go. We have lost so much of our advantage in innovation over the last number of years.

The government has been allowed to take away our trust. That is where the problem lies.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we take a look at the essence of the issue, we see that the Conservative Party is saying that it wants all documents, unredacted, to be handed directly over to the RCMP. The former law clerk has said that is an abuse of power. An abuse of power is the game that the Conservatives are playing, and they completely sidestep.

This reminds me of Stephen Harper, who is the only former prime minister who has been in contempt of Parliament. Now the Conservative Party is abusing power from an opposition point of view. Is there any Conservative member who does not understand this? The Conservatives are ignoring the concerns of the RCMP, a fairly well-recognized institution here in Canada. Today, the games that the Conservative Party is playing are a disgrace.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to the point the member tries to make about contempt of Parliament, I was there. It went to different committees. One of the issues we had was being in a minority government, with members who did not support us. They came up with different motions in every one of the committees until they felt they had a critical mass, and then they tried to take it to the House. It was all a game that was played by opposition parties at that time, but look what happened after that: We finally got ourselves a majority government.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just admitted that the Conservatives want to play games with this issue.

The Bloc Québécois and the New Democrats have been consistent in our message. We need to see financial transparency with regard to the very serious allegations and issues present in the Auditor General's report. We know that these documents have an incredible amount of information that could shed light on a very important and credible issue.

I take issue with the member's answer about the structure of committees of this House and with the play the Conservatives are trying to utilize. It is one the member himself has experience with from when he was in government.

Can the member speak to why he thinks these games are occurring in this place on an issue as serious as financial accountability?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure why the member felt there was an admission of games being played. I was commenting on the reality when the government has all of the other parties against it, which can happen in these circumstances. We do not see that with the New Democrats, because they oscillate back and forth. We sometimes have the same situation with the Bloc. It becomes a tag team thing that they are going to support the government. It keeps the government in place.

The current government feels pretty comfortable in the position it is in. However, when all opposition parties are against the government, it is a little different.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, “with great power comes great responsibility.” Many will recognize this expression from the wise words of advice Uncle Ben gave to a young Peter Parker in relation to his alter ego, Spider-Man. While this proverb has certainly been popularized again in the modern era by Spider-Man comics, its meaning is found throughout human history, such as the tale of the sword hanging by a single hair over the head of Damocles while King Dionysius permitted him to experience being king for a day. It is not only a powerful mantra for everyday living, but it is fitting for the situation we find ourselves in within the House of Commons today with the motion we have been debating for the past several days.

It is an immense privilege and responsibility to sit in this place, to be sent here by our neighbours to our nation's capital, to be their voice in the halls of power. The Westminster system is unlike any other form of government. This is the House of Commons, where the common citizen is chosen by other common citizens to be sent here to represent them. We have the government of the day, the Prime Minister, the Privy Council ministers, deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, and thousands of bureaucrats. Canadians may well believe that those people have power, but in the Westminster system, quite the opposite is true. Everyday citizens of Canada hold the power through the people they send to the House of the common people. Canadians are the boss and we, in this place, are their servants, sitting in their chair for a very brief moment in the long arc of history.

This is parliamentary supremacy, a term that is not often used outside of academia, but what does it mean? Why does parliamentary supremacy matter to the marine mechanic in Pointe au Baril, the cranberry farmer in Bala or the server in South River? It matters to them because it means that they hold the power and that, collectively, the members in this place who represent them are far more powerful than any cabinet minister or even a prime minister. We are the people's voice and the people's voice is supreme.

A majority of citizen representatives in the House of the people has demanded the production of documents related to a $390-million spending scandal of the government's making. Despite that parliamentary supremacy, the government, the cabinet and the Prime Minister have simply refused. This is not even the first time the Liberal government has ignored an order from the people's representatives to produce documents. Canadians may well remember the Winnipeg lab document scandal. Parliament ordered documents to be released that pertained to Canada's top infectious disease laboratory where two scientists were intentionally working to benefit the Chinese Communist Regime. The government fought to keep those documents hidden from the people, ignoring orders and even taking the former Speaker of the House to court to hide the truth, not just from us in the House of Commons, but from all Canadians.

There can be no dispute that oftentimes in this place we exchange partisan jabs in question period. It can be a very ruckus affair with heckling and plenty of theatrics. In certain circumstances, there comes a matter so fundamental to the functioning of the House, a matter so fundamental to the rights of Canadians, those citizens who sent us here to speak for them, that we must hit the pause button on the regular business of this place to protect the very purpose of this place and the rights of the Canadians who sent us here.

How did we get here? In 2001, the government of Stephen Harper created an organization that would, “Demonstrate new technologies to promote sustainable development, including technologies to address issues related to climate change and the quality of air, water and soil.” This organization was to funder public-private partnerships to commercialize new green technologies. It was called Sustainable Development Technology Canada. Since its creation, it invested in over 300 projects all across the country.

It was a great idea that worked very well until the current Liberal government was elected. In 2017, just before the current government took office, the Auditor General reviewed Sustainable Development Technology Canada and delivered a very positive report indicating that the organization was operating appropriately. Then, late in 2018, then industry minister Navdeep Bains started to complain about the then chair Jim Balsillie. He was a chair who was leading the organization well, according to the Auditor General.

Minister Bains complained that Mr. Balsillie had been critical of some government legislation. Imagine that. Then in 2019, Minister Bains began appointing Liberal friends and insiders to the board of directors of Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

It is important to note that Sustainable Development Technology Canada was not an agency completely independent from the government. The Minister of Industry appointed the board, and several staff members from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada would regularly sit in on meetings and monitor the activities of the board. Minister Bains then appointed Annette Verschuren, someone who was receiving Sustainable Development Technology Canada funding through one of her companies, to be the new chair of the board. Immediately, red flags should have gone up. This new chair, the steward of this fund, the person who was tapped to oversee its operations and hand out money, was a recipient of the same money she was supposed to be watching over.

It turns out red flags did go up. Minister Bains, the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office were all warned. They were all told of the risks associated with appointing this conflicted chair.

In an alternate universe where Canadians had a competent government that was accountable and responsible and followed the rules, an appointment like this would never have been made in the first place. Of course, that is not what happened, because Canadians do not have a competent, responsible government. We have a scandal-plagued, incompetent Liberal government that has proven time and time again that with every issue they tackle, they make it worse, and that the interests of their well-connected friends and supporters, or the interests of those close to them, always come before the interests of Canadians. We saw it with the WE Charity scandal. Friends of the Liberal Party were quietly and quickly awarded a government contract worth $40 million, until the member for Carleton found out and started digging.

In June 2019, Minister Bains, after having received some sound advice that appointing an individual to lead a public fund whose companies benefit from that fund was a bad idea, ignored the advice and appointed her anyhow. Did this new chair implement a radical change in culture? Did she lead with integrity and honour to ensure that conflicts of interest between public funds and private interests did not occur? Absolutely not. In fact, the new Liberal board chair went on to create a corporate environment where conflicts of interest were not just merely tolerated but facilitated. Other members of the board went on to award public money, Canadians' money, to companies in which board members held stock or leadership positions.

I think it is important for everyone to understand what “conflict of interest” means. The Oxford dictionary describes it this way: a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity.

In this case, Liberal board members' individual interests were enriched by their actions in their professional and public duties. That is a problem, and Canadians understand that. We can forgive the average Canadian, who is not likely as familiar with the fancy boardrooms that Liberal insiders frequent, but it is not really that complicated to excuse ourselves or remove ourselves from situations where we are or are perceived to be in a conflict of interest. It is a perfectly legitimate action to take. In fact, it is the law.

There are simple and straightforward procedures to avoid a conflict of interest. It is the honourable thing to do. It is an act of integrity, of being faithful to our public role and our solemn responsibility to the citizens of this country, whose money we are spending and whose trust we must strive to earn every single day. However, the Liberal insiders on the Sustainable Development Technology Canada board did not care about that public trust. They did not care about honour or integrity. Even more galling is that these dishonourable Liberals did it all out in the open. They were so arrogant and pleased with their self-enrichment at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer that they did not even try to hide their corruption.

Officials from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada witnessed 186 conflicts at the board but were apparently powerless to do anything about it, that is, until November 2022, when heroic whistle-blowers raised their concerns about the goings-on at Sustainable Development Technology Canada with the Auditor General. What did those whistle-blowers say when they appeared at a parliamentary committee? One of them said:

One of them said:

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.

He also said:

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.

...I think the current government is more interested in protecting themselves and protecting the situation from being a public nightmare. They would rather protect wrongdoers and financial mismanagement than have to deal with a situation like SDTC in the public—

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

There has been a really tiresome background noise for a while now. If I wanted to hear white noise, something that sounds like a river, I would be in the woods right now. However, I am in Parliament, so I would prefer to hear the speech—

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

I am going to respectfully interrupt the hon. member. Thank you. From my seat here, I could not hear the discussions, but I would obviously ask all my colleagues to listen to the person giving the speech and not have any discussions in the House.

The hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka has eight minutes and 30 seconds to continue his speech.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General of Canada launched a thorough investigation that revealed widespread conflicts of interest, corruption and abuse of Canadians' hard-earned dollars at Sustainable Development Technology Canada. On June 10 of this year, the House members, by a majority vote of 174 to 148, developed a motion calling for the production of documents from Sustainable Development Technology Canada to be turned over to the RCMP.

How did the government respond to an order from the people's voice? Departments either outright refused to comply or heavily redacted and blacked out relevant documents that the people demanded. There was nothing in the people's order to allow for any redactions. The people have demanded the truth, and they want the RCMP to be able to investigate the misuse and abuse of their dollars. This has been the talk of the Ottawa bubble these days: The Constitution Act, the Parliament of Canada Act, parliamentary privilege and the privilege of the House.

Imagine that, while sitting in these hallowed chambers surrounding by deferential security guards, we could be debating our privileges as members. There are Canadians out there who are hungry and worried about how they are going to heat their homes as the winter sets in, but our privileges have been breached. It is not our privilege, but the right of Canadians to know what their own government is up to. Our Fathers of Confederation gave that power of the people to their representatives who sit in this place. It is not because I am a member of Parliament that I believe I have the privilege to access these documents. It is because the people who we all represent have that right. They have tasked us in the House and, as a House, we have a powerful ability to exercise that right, an absolute and unfettered ability to exercise that right.

Why did the House feel compelled to order these documents? It has everything to do with the Auditor General's findings. She found that 82% of transactions involving payment from Sustainable Development Technology Canada to companies approved by the board of directors were conflicted. According to the Auditor General, $300 million of Canadians' money was given to companies where the board members who voted to award those companies had a conflict of interest. Three hundred million dollars of public money was being used to fund private interests of the people who were voting to award the funds.

It is reasonable to think that this scandal goes deeper. In the five-year period of examination by the Auditor General there were 405 transactions approved by the board. The Auditor General looked at 226, so just over half of the transactions, and found that 186 of the transactions were conflicted. We can assume that the ratio stands for the entire package of 405 transactions. The Auditor General also found that the same Liberal-appointed board approved and funded another 58 million dollars' worth of projects that were outside the mandate of the foundation. They were not even eligible under their own rules, but the Liberal board gave them the money anyhow. The Liberals would have us believe that this is an example of a bureaucracy off track, but the Auditor General made it clear that the blame of the scandal falls on the Prime Minister's industry minister, who “did not sufficiently monitor” the contracts that were given to well-connected Liberal insiders.

What we have here is not just gross mismanagement, it is corruption and blatant conflict of interest by Liberal appointees to the tune of $300 million. There was abuse of the public purse: A personal enrichment under the guise of helping the environment. Once these companies that were connected to Liberal insiders received these government grants, they were seen as having a seal of approval by outside financiers. This allowed these companies to go and collect millions more dollars to further their interests. It was a green slush fund for well-connected Liberals. Canadians' money was mishandled and private interest got in the way, once again, of the public good.

It would be reasonable to conclude that we are debating yet another Liberal spending scandal. Reasonable because there have been so many Liberal spending scandals that it is tough to keep up. It would be understandable if some were to believe that we are engaged in some sort of self-serving debate about members of Parliament's privilege. In truth, this debate, this motion of privilege that has halted all the other work of the House, is about the very foundations of our democracy and the right of citizens of this country to know what their government is doing. That sword of Damocles hangs over the head of the government. It hangs precariously over the Liberal government and its ministers who, on so many occasions, arrogantly operate as though they are above the law, as though they are above the people. Conservatives will never relent in exposing the corruption of the government, and we will never relent in our solemn duty to be the voice of the people in the House, their House, where we defend their rights above the rights of Liberal insiders, Liberal cabinet ministers and, most certainly, above the rights of the Liberal Prime Minister.

The citizens of Canada, through the House of Commons, have demanded the truth, all of it. It is time for the government to hand it over.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to read verbatim a couple of very important quotes. The first one is from the RCMP, signed by the commissioner. It states, “There is significant risk that the Motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.” It is talking about the Charter of Rights and the Conservative motion.

The next quote is from the former law clerk, again, an independent individual. I would ask the member to really listen to this part. It says, “it is an abuse of its powers for the House to use its power to demand and get documents from the Government in order to transfer them to a third party (RCMP) that wouldn't otherwise receive them or to compel the Government to give documents to the third party”.

The Conservative game that we are playing right now says we should get this information directly to the RCMP. We have the RCMP, the Auditor General, the former law clerk and the former deputy commissioner. Who are the advisers of the Conservative Party today?

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member's question is quite simple. The people of Canada are our advisers. This Parliament is supreme based on them sending us here. A majority of members in the House have demanded these documents. The Liberals should hand them over.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, an information has been laid, and we agree that we have a right to these documents and that parliamentary privilege has indeed been breached. Although we can go on discussing whether we are using the time of the House wisely, the fact remains that the question is substantively important.

That being said, apart from the proven or suspected corruption he talked to us about, is my colleague calling into question all subsidies paid out under the program, which helps these companies transition?

I want to make sure I understand the Conservatives' position.