Debates of Oct. 2nd, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

You have nine minutes.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to move on. I am going to talk about the green fund spending scandal. However, again we ask which one. Only the Liberal government could actually have a scandal with subsets to it. We are looking at three different green spending scandals right now: scandal A, scandal B and scandal C.

There is the environment green grants audit scandal, in which the internal audit audited the grants and contributions of the department of the environment. We found that the government is giving out millions to superprofitable companies that have been cited for massive pollution problems.

In fact, I have the last couple here. Rio Tinto, which is worth billions of dollars, received millions from the Liberal government with very little oversight. Lafarge Canada, another foreign company, received millions from the government, again without oversight.

The government funded, it subsidized, foreign universities in the U.S. that have billions in endowments. Taxpayers, through the Liberals, decided that we were going to subsidize those universities. It also gave money to a foreign country to study fauna. I think that was to New Zealand. What that has to do with the Canadian environment is beyond me. What we found out through the audit is that the government did not provide proper oversight and governance. Of course, there is the green net-zero accelerator fund scandal, as shown by the environment commissioner, who works with the Auditor General, at $8 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money.

At the same time, in my riding there is an association, a not-for-profit charity, called the Veterans Association Food Bank, which serves veterans, RCMP veterans and police veterans. There is actually a food bank in a city as wealthy as Edmonton, in a country as wealthy as Canada, for veterans who cannot feed themselves, but Canada has an $8-billion accelerator fund.

The Auditor General reports that the Liberal government did not track value for money, the ability of any of the companies receiving $8 billion, and whether they were actually using the money to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Think about that: $8 billion to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, but we were going to give it to companies that we were not actually going to ask to prove that they were using the money to reduce greenhouse gases.

Twelve of the 17 companies provided zero plans to actually reduce greenhouse gases. This is a comment from the Auditor General's office to the environment commissioner: “Due diligence was not followed by the Liberal government before shovelling Canadian tax dollars out the door.” If we think about that, billions of dollars were given away. We received a list of just eight of the companies that received money through the fund and that had not provided any proof that they were going to use taxpayers' money to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The total market capitalization, which is the value of the companies, exceeds $1 trillion.

Canadians are struggling at home, and 25% of them, I understand, are under the poverty line now. Two million Canadians go to a food bank every month. We cannot provide our soldiers with ammunition or even sleeping bags, and there are veterans going to food banks in Edmonton. However, the government has $8 billion to give to corporations worth over $1 trillion, and it cannot even bother to say, “You know what, for this $8-billion gift, could you like maybe, please, pretty please, prove to us that you're actually going to reduce greenhouse gases with the money?”. Of course not; the current government does not do that.

Of course, now we are on to the third scandal of the green spending money, the one we are debating here tonight: the green slush fund. I will summarize the scandal. The Auditor General found that the Liberals turned Sustainable Development Technology Canada, SDTC, into a slush fund for Liberal insiders. A recording that was leaked, of a senior civil servant, slammed the “outright incompetence” of the Liberal government, which gave 390 million dollars' worth of contracts inappropriately. Where have we heard this before, money given out inappropriately?

The Auditor General found that SDTC gave $58 million to 10 ineligible projects that on occasion could not demonstrate an environmental benefit or development of green technology. Again, where have we heard that? Oh, that is scandal number two. But at least this time, and I give the government credit, it was only $58 million it gave away for no reason, down from the $8 billion it gave away. Mind you, it is from the same department, which is unfortunate.

A third of a billion dollars was given out in over 186 cases to projects in which board members had a conflict of interest. We would think that if the Liberals had a third of a billion dollars to hand out, they would make sure the people receiving the money were not the same people deciding who receives the money. Some $58 million went to projects without ensuring that contribution agreements and terms were met.

This is the same issue we had with the audit of the administration of grants and contributions at Environment Canada, where money was given out without proper oversight. To quote from that report:

The structural and strategic foundations needed to support the program delivery model—such as governance, processes, systems, compliance framework, training, and capacity-building...did not adapt in a manner that effectively supports the scale and complexity of the current number of programs....

It also noted, “inconsistent financial management approaches that do not fully support...efficient program delivery.”

We have had this issue before after a parliamentary committee has demanded documents. Members may remember the McKinsey scandal, which I forgot to cover earlier. Dominic Barton was a friend of the Prime Minister, and his company received 10 times the number of contracts than under the previous government. It is the same McKinsey responsible for “supercharging” the opioid crisis in Canada, probably one of the most vile companies in the entire world. The government operations committee demanded documents from the government and the government refused.

We have various levels of the government stating why, saying that Parliament, much as we are hearing from the Liberals, is apparently not supreme. We heard government officials at the the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister's own department, telling us that information and privacy laws supersede the will of Parliament.

Here we are back again. It is the same issue, the same attitude from the government the same cover-up. This time, at least, unlike with McKinsey, we have the Bloc and the NDP supporting us. We will get to the truth of part three of the green slush fund.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Public Services and Procurement

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is the time of the parliamentary day when we change agenda items. We go from discussing one Liberal corruption scandal to discussing a different corruption scandal, so it is a completely different mind frame. Previously, we were talking about the Liberal green slush fund scandal. Now I am going to follow up on a question I had asked about the arrive scam scandal. There is an expression: same stuff, different day. We see so much corruption under the NDP-Liberal government.

We continue to see new revelations in the arrive scam scandal. Right now, the government operations committee is doing a study on the Liberal indigenous contracting scandal. This is a scandal involving how Liberals misused the indigenous contracting system to allow well-connected, in many cases non-Indigenous, elites to take and benefit from resources that were supposed to be going to support indigenous communities. We had testimony from the AFN that suggested that a very small percentage of those allotments for indigenous contracting are actually going to real indigenous companies. This is another contracting scandal the government operations committee is investigating, but it comes out of the arrive scam scandal.

The arrive scam scandal, which revealed just how broken government contracting was, involved $60 million being spent on a glitchy app that did not work very well. A company was hired to build this app, GC Strategies, which is not an IT company. It does not actually build apps. The Liberals thought they would hire someone to build an app and went to a company that does not build apps. It was two people in a basement. What they did was receive the contract and pass it on, so the government went and hired someone who went and hired other people. One of the companies that got business as part of this was Dalian Enterprises, a company on the government's indigenous contracting list, but also a company that did not actually do any work on it. It simply received contracts and subcontracted. Part of the corruption we are seeing is that the government is using tiny companies, made up of well-connected insiders, that receive contracts and then subcontract.

The concept of this is very simple. Hypothetically, let us say that I needed to have someone come in to replace my bathtub, so I went out and hired someone. I pay them a certain amount of money, but they do not actually produce bathtubs or know anything about them. This person simply gets the contract from me and goes out to subcontract it, to buy a bathtub from someone else and then sell it to me for a markup.

That is what happened with ArriveCAN. A company was hired. It took the contract, hired someone else to do the work, and got the contract at a markup. It does not make a lot of sense in the interest of taxpayers that this would happen, but well-connected insiders have continually profited under the government. The Liberals have ran a government with the purpose not of serving Canadians in general, but of allowing well-connected elite insiders to take advantage of programs that are supposed to be benefiting Canadians as a whole. We see this with ArriveCAN, an app that did not work very well, and that accidentally sent over 10,000 Canadians into quarantine. It is an example of these tiny middleman companies being able to make massive markups.

Now we are seeing the same thing in the abuse of indigenous contracting, where non-indigenous, elite insiders are able to take advantage of the program and take for themselves money that should be benefiting indigenous entrepreneurs and indigenous communities across the country. The contracting system in the government is broken. Well-connected insiders are taking advantage of it, and it is not producing value for money. Will this government apologize for the arrive scam scandal and commit to real meaningful change, or will it take a Conservative government to replace—

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to my colleague's concerns about the ArriveCAN app.

As he knows, the Canada Border Services Agency launched an internal investigation as soon as it became aware of allegations of inappropriate contracting practices. The matter was also referred to the RCMP for investigation.

Contracts with three companies involved, including GC Strategies, were also halted through a work stoppage order issued by Public Services and Procurement Canada. We expect procurement procedures to be followed properly, and anyone who does not follow the rules should face the appropriate consequences. That has always been, and will always be, the case.

Reports from the Office of the Procurement Ombud and the Auditor General have identified unacceptable gaps in management processes, roles and controls. Some recommendations have already been implemented, and the Canada Border Services Agency is taking additional action to ensure that practices align with policies and meet Canadians' expectations.

The government is taking steps to ensure all departments are better positioned to undertake projects of this nature in the future.

While the RCMP cannot comment on specific investigations, it can confirm that significant coordination is under way. The member can rest assured that investigators have access to the resources, tools and supports necessary to advance an investigation. It is examining this matter carefully, with all available information, including the Auditor General's performance audit report, and will take appropriate actions as required. However, it would be inappropriate for us to provide any further comments on this matter at this time. The government has full confidence that any RCMP investigation will be pursued with integrity and efficiency.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary read from a prepared legalese attempt to deflect all responsibility for the government's failures.

Here are the facts we know them. A former minister, according to testimony at the government operations committee, said that he wanted someone's head on a plate, wanted someone to blame within the public service. This spawned intensifying conflict between senior civil servants trying to blame each other and not be the government's chosen fall person. The government has failed to take responsibility for how, under its watch over the last nine years, it has broken Canada's contracting system and allowed well-connected elite insiders to make off like bandits, providing no benefit to the Canadian people.

Will the government take responsibility for the mess it has created?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, we understand and take all the concerns expressed by the hon. member very seriously. The RCMP also takes all complaints it receives seriously, and all the decisions made reflect the rigour, diligence, and independence of its actions.

The RCMP is assessing available information, including the Auditor General's performance audit report, and will take appropriate action. Allegations have been referred to the RCMP, and the government welcomes these ongoing investigations.

Since this is an ongoing investigation, the RCMP can only provide limited details. We are confident that the RCMP has access to the resources, tools and support it needs to advance these investigations.

Mental Health and Addictions

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

Madam Speaker, it was on May 10 of this year that I posed a question about the Liberals' risky and failed experimentation program in British Columbia with the free distribution of hard drugs to our most severely addicted neighbours. Specifically, I wanted to know whether the Liberal members of Parliament would be voting with us, the Conservative members of Parliament, on a common-sense motion that we had put forward a couple of days earlier to ban hard drugs and offer recovery and hope instead.

I thought it was a fair question because, at that time, it had become abundantly clear that the free drug experimentation program in British Columbia had been an utter failure. Even the left-leaning NDP Premier David Eby was admitting failure and was demanding an immediate stop to the pilot project. The vote came up a couple of days later and the Liberals and the NDP, of course, voted against our common-sense motion, because that is what they always do. They always vote against our common-sense motions.

However, I wonder, if that same motion were tabled today, whether they would vote with us now, being five months later. I ask it in this context. Looking at how these two parties and their counterpart in British Columbia, the NDP provincial government, have been flip-flopping on issues relating to the toxic drug crisis, it is hard to say how they would vote today. They really believe in harm reduction, safe supply and decriminalization, even if those beliefs are based more on ideology than on evidence and data.

The harm reductionists, the academics, the leaders and even the government's own professional advisers were calling on the government not to abandon the project, but to expand it to make more government-issued narcotics available for more people in more parts of the province. It is hard to shake people from their ideologically held beliefs, even if the evidence is clearly contrary to those beliefs, because it is just so easy to dismiss inconvenient evidence to the contrary as misinformation. That is what the Liberals tend to do, except, of course, when the evidence is the latest polling data showing many formerly safe NDP and Liberal seats leaning Conservative if an election were to be held today.

This is particularly worrisome for provincial Premier David Eby, who is facing the fight of his political life right now. An election is just a couple of weeks away. Therefore, what does he do? Well, he takes a look at what the Conservatives are doing right, at what is moving them ahead in the polls. He adopts some of their policies and now he is trying to convince British Columbians that this is what he believed all along anyway and, this time, it really is going to work. I am hoping, together with many other people, that British Columbians are done with the NDP experiment altogether.

Now, I will get back to our Conservative Party motion, here in the House of Commons back in May. I am going to read just a small part of it. The motion states that:

...the House call on the Prime Minister to:...

(d) end taxpayer funded narcotics and redirect this money into treatment and recovery programs for drug addiction.

That is a motion that the Liberals and New Democrats voted against. How would they vote today? Would they change their mind, given that their counterpart in British Columbia flip-flopped on the radical decriminalization program earlier this year and how now, in the heat of an election campaign, he is flip-flopping on what he calls compassionate intervention programs, treatment? The emphasis is now on treatment. Therefore, I am wondering how Liberals would vote today, and their NDP counterparts—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, the overdose crisis is one of the most significant and complex public health threats that Canada has faced in decades. There is no simple solution. The factors driving the crisis are complex and interrelated. They include the contamination of illegal drugs with potent synthetic opioids, underlying socio-economic disadvantages, and challenges in connecting people with the appropriate services. We need to work together to stop the harm done and the needless deaths of people across the country.

No one government can address this crisis alone. That is why we are working closely with all orders of government, partners and stakeholders to implement a comprehensive approach to addressing substance use and related harms, focused on health, social well-being and protecting public safety.

Working with the provinces and territories and other partners across the country means implementing new solutions, monitoring them closely and making the necessary adjustments along the way. We cannot keep trying the same thing over and over again and expect different results. We have to be audacious and open to finding new solutions to get out of this crisis.

The amendment to B.C.'s exemption for personal drug possession demonstrates this point. In May 2024, we granted B.C.'s request to prohibit the possession of controlled substances in public spaces because the province identified a concern and sought to adjust its approach. We have always maintained that this exemption, granted at the request of the provincial government, will be closely monitored and amended if needed.

Public safety has remained an absolute priority for the Government of Canada, which continues to work on finding innovative solutions to the current drug toxicity crisis.

We are working in close collaboration with our national and international partners, including Public Safety Canada, the RCMP, Canada Border Services Agency and Canada Post, to disrupt the illegal drug network, equip border officers with the tools they need to intercept illegal drugs and precursors and counter, with our private sector partners, the money laundering that comes with illegal drug trafficking.

The government will also continue to invest in other evidence-based services and supports to counter the crisis. For example, in budget 2024, we announced a new commitment of $150 million for a fund to support the municipalities and indigenous communities. This funding will allow them to provide a rapid response, especially for the hard-hit communities with urgent and critical needs related to the overdose crisis.

With the ultimate aim of providing Canadians with timely access to the prevention, harm reduction, treatment and recovery services and supports they need, we will continue to work with municipalities, provincial and territorial governments, law enforcement agencies, indigenous communities and people with living or lived experience in order to take urgent action and leverage our tools and collective expertise to tackle this national public health crisis.

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

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary might not be aware of the recent case in British Columbia of a 13-year-old girl, Brianna MacDonald, who died in a homeless camp from a toxic drug overdose. She was in and out of the hospital many times, and despite her family urging the hospital to keep her for treatment, the hospital administration decided that at 13 years old, Brianna was able to make her own health decisions. A few weeks later, she was dead. The family is now calling on the government to support involuntary treatment for people who cannot make responsible health decisions for themselves.

Will the government support a move toward treatment for people like Brianna?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, I am aware of this file.

People use substances for a variety of reasons, including for medical purposes and to cope with stress, trauma or pain.

We need to consider the wide range of individual needs and remember that everyone deserves access to supports that work for them. That is why reducing stigma remains a priority for our government, to ensure that all Canadians have access to appropriate services. Stigma directly harms people who use drugs. It creates barriers to services and lowers the quality of care. It also encourages people to conceal their drug use and keeps them from seeking help.

We want to encourage policies and programs that focus on health and compassion in the hope of creating a society where substance use disorders are seen as a chronic health condition that deserves non-judgmental care.

Carbon Pricing

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, last week, I had the opportunity to question the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry about the effect of the carbon tax on steel. It was incredible to hear the answer the minister tried to pawn off on us, saying that the government has stood up for steelworkers.

I have met with steelworkers and the steel industry, and I am sure the minister has as well. What the steel industry has said unequivocally is that if the carbon tax goes up, as it is scheduled to, there will be no steel industry left in Canada. The government's plan to quadruple the carbon tax will effectively drive the entire steel industry in Canada out of business. If that is what standing up for steelworkers means to the government, I think it has the definition wrong.

What we have seen in the steel industry as a result of the carbon tax is that the carbon tax makes Canadian steel very expensive, far more expensive than that of all their competitors. We now see that 61% of steel in Canada comes from foreign countries, they are imports, and every year it gets worse. Why? Because the carbon tax makes Canadian steel far more expensive than any other steel in the world. In fact, the country is now being flooded with very cheap, dirty Chinese steel. Chinese steel is more than two times more polluting with carbon emissions than Canadian steel. The government is driving out the steel business in this country.

Steel accounts for about 120,000 direct and indirect jobs in this country. The carbon tax is going to effectively kill those jobs. We know that the carbon tax has done a whole bunch of things. We now have two million people going to food banks because the carbon tax has made food so expensive. We have tent cities all across the entire country, hundreds and hundreds of them, because housing has become so expensive under the Liberal government.

My question to the minister was that if he thinks the carbon tax is so great and so beneficial not only for Canadian steelworkers but for Canadians in general, why do the Liberals not just call a carbon tax election and let Canadians decide? I think Canadians will unequivocally and resoundingly say they have had enough of the carbon tax.

The carbon tax is driving jobs out of this country. It is making food more expensive. It is making Canadians line up at food banks because they cannot afford food. If the Liberals are so confident that carbon tax is working so well, will they call a carbon tax election and, if not, why not?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague knows that I will not be able to answer his question.

The costs of climate change are clear. Canadians want to be part of the solution. Businesses are also rising to the occasion. Innovative businesses of all sizes are meeting consumer demand for low-carbon products and investing heavily to adapt their production practices accordingly.

The member opposite should know that Canada's steel producers are leading the way. For example, just this year, ArcelorMittal Dofasco earned ResponsibleSteel certification, recognizing the company's leadership in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, noise, emissions effluents, as well as waste and water stewardship and biodiversity.

In Canada, we use carbon pricing because it works. It creates powerful financial incentives for industries and individuals to take concrete steps to reduce their emissions. In fact, in the member opposite's riding of Dufferin—Caledon, over 80,000 people received the Canada carbon rebate.

Canada has put a price on carbon pollution but is taking a flexible approach. Industries across all sectors have said that they support pricing because of this flexibility. They have said that pollution pricing allows them to invest in cleaner processes without the government telling them how to do it.

Carbon pricing is an economic policy that works by ensuring that our industries remain competitive in a decarbonized world. The federal system allows provinces and territories to maintain their own systems if they meet minimum national standards.

Carbon pricing has been in place across Canada since 2019. Many provinces, such as Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec, have had carbon pricing for even longer.

All the money paid by industries gets given right back to the province it comes from to invest in clean-energy projects for industry. For every dollar that has been invested in industry through these pricing proceeds, three dollars have been mobilized, essentially tripling investment in clean industrial projects. By putting a price on pollution, we send a signal across the economy to encourage households and businesses to change their behaviour and find new and innovative ways to use less-polluting energy products and services.

The industry remains competitive, both through the incentives provided by carbon pricing to develop new technologies and through smart pricing design for heavy industry across Canada. Our approach keeps overall costs low while continuing to drive emissions reductions and keep Canada competitive internationally. That is why economist after economist supports carbon pricing as the cheapest and most efficient tool we have to fight climate change.

Carbon pricing is a central pillar of Canada's climate plan, because it reduces emissions, accelerates the use of clean technologies and fuels, and supports good jobs in a diversified economy, but also because it complements and amplifies the impact of other aspects of our climate plan. Carbon pricing lays the foundation for over 140 measures in Canada's emissions reduction plan, including the clean fuel regulations, which reduce the carbon intensity of diesel and gasoline, and the proposed clean electricity regulations, which will help deliver a net-zero grid.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is almost impossible to respond coherently to that answer.

The steel industry has made it very clear that if the carbon tax continues to go up, steel producers will be out of business. I know the investments they have made. They have produced the greenest steel in the world and should be rewarded for that. Instead what the government is doing is punishing them for that by promising to quadruple the carbon tax.

The fact is that the member can say what she wants if she thinks carbon pricing is great. However, the steel industry is on record saying that if the carbon tax goes up as planned, it will be completely out of business. Sixty-one per cent of the Canadian steel market is already taken up by cheap, dirty steel imports. The industry itself is saying, “This will be the end of us.”

How can the member stand here and say that it is working, when the industry says it is going to put them out of business?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I said that because it is true and because all economists are saying the same thing. Canadians across the country are raising the alarm on climate change. They can see it with their own eyes: longer, fiercer wildfire seasons; the hottest summers in history; and floods in urban and rural areas across the country over the last few years. I could go on.

Experts tell us that from 2015 to 2025, climate change impacts have shaved $25 billion off the GDP. That is half a years' growth. Without significant additional actions to reduce emissions, those costs are projected to grow to $35 billion in 2030. That is what scientists predicted a long time ago.

We need to take ambitious action now to avoid drastic changes to the trajectory of the climate on earth. Pricing pollution is an essential strategy because it simply cannot be free to pollute.

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

The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:09 p.m.)