Debates of Oct. 21st, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I see that the member quickly caught himself. I remind all members to be very careful. When there is a current member of the House, out of respect, we use their riding name or title they hold.

The hon. member for Banff—Airdrie.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as is most of what the member says in the House, that is complete hogwash. The Leader of the Opposition has security clearance. He is a member of the Privy Council of Canada. He has had security clearance since he was sworn in as a minister of the Crown.

Having said that, as the Leader of the Opposition, his job is to hold the government to account. In this situation, the government is trying to find a way to silence him. That is why it wants him to have a briefing where he cannot disclose the information. The Conservative leader has said very clearly that the government should release the names of anyone involved; however, as always, the government refuses to be accountable and to do just that. I say shame on the government.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I know all members have had the opportunity to have a restful break and come back to the House with lots of enthusiasm, but I am going to ask the hon. member for Waterloo not to take the floor unless recognized by the Speaker, so there is not a back and forth between members.

The hon. member for Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is clearly a lot to unravel in the SDTC file. There is likely some fraud, embezzlement and so on involved, but I would like to ask our Conservative colleague a question.

Some people have resigned, including a prestigious business leader, Annette Verschuren. Her companies received a lot of money and, interestingly enough, she was Stephen Harper's economic adviser from 2008 to 2015.

It is easy to blame the government. The Conservatives are right and we are correct to blame the government for this situation. However, can our Conservative friends do a little navel-gazing and give us some background on Ms. Verschuren?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today, we are talking about a situation in which there was a green slush fund. It looks as though it was probably created for that purpose. We had an issue with almost $400 million in taxpayers' money. As I indicated during my speech, 10 of the projects were completely ineligible. In another 186 cases, there were conflicts of interest with members on the board, and that is what we are talking about. We have $400 million in Canadian taxpayers' money that went to Liberal insiders inappropriately, and that is something that we are trying to hold the government to account for. All members of the House should be trying to drive toward that today.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have been sitting here listening to the member for Winnipeg North spread misinformation relating to whether the leader of the official opposition should have security clearance. The reality is that information in this country is overclassified, and things that should be declassified should be made—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is very clearly, according to Beauchesne's, impugning my motives by saying that I am spreading misinformation. Everything I said was factual.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for raising this point. There is a lot of lively debate going on in the House, and the Chair will monitor it very carefully. I would encourage all members to be judicious in their choice of words.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North continually stands up and filibusters for the government. This comes down to the information we are debating, which is the release of documents. The government refuses to hand them over to the House and the RCMP to ensure that Canadians can see exactly what is going on. We also know that he keeps raising this false pretense that the member for Nepean has all the information they need.

I would say this: The information is overclassified. Why does the government not declassify it? What are the Liberals trying to hide?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. There is no doubt about that.

The answer is a bit more difficult. The reason it is so difficult is that, as with many of the examples I gave during my speech, we have a government that refuses to be held to account. It refuses to provide basic information that would allow it to be accountable for its actions, in this case, for giving out $400 million in Canadian taxpayer money to the government members' friends. I suspect the only reason the members do not want to release the names and the information is that they know it would be damning to the government. It would be held to account, and its members would be fired in the next election.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise on behalf of the constituents of the riding of Waterloo, especially when it comes to the important information we are hearing.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when you hear clear heckles and know who they are from, you will not call them out by name according to their ridings; you have no problem naming me by my riding, because there is such a shortage of women in this place. That is a double standard of this place that has always been alive and well, so I appreciate that it continues.

My question, though it might be difficult for the member, is a genuine question. It is on the question of privilege—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country is rising on a point of order.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point to the comment that the Liberal member opposite was making about heckling. I have been sitting here listening to her heckle continually for the last 15 minutes. About every 20 seconds, she decides to heckle something. Here she is supposedly calling out members when she is the biggest offender this morning.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we can see who is in the House and will not say who is not in the House, because we do not do that. However, I think it was quite clear when I received the floor as you provided it to me, Mr. Speaker, that we heard other people trying to take space and that you knew who it was. That was the point I was making.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member opposite made reference to people not being in this chamber, particularly women. I believe that, if we did a count, which we will not, we would have just as many if not more women than men in the chamber.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am just going to stop the hon. member there.

The hon. member for Waterloo very carefully and artfully pointed out the people who are present. She made a specific point of not referring to people who are absent.

I am going to let the hon. member for Waterloo briefly pose her question.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the time was paused during the points of order.

In the member's speech, he referred to former members, including a former minister of justice. I recall, when I was the government House leader, how disrespectful the official opposition was towards that member. During that time, we also had another indigenous MP who served in this place and who spoke quite eloquently, when they were leaving this chamber, as to why they were leaving, because it was so isolating. Today, the member speaks to the government's responsibility but does not want to take any responsibility as part of an official opposition that was quite disrespectful.

I believe everyone supports this question of privilege. Does the member know of any member or any party that is opposed to it? Why not call the question so that we could actually get to the work that this question of privilege is asking for?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is much like the heckles that the member imagined. She imagines a lot of things.

At the end of the day, we are talking about $400 million of Canadian taxpayers' hard-earned money that was essentially stolen. Canadian taxpayers worked hard to earn this money, and it was taken and given to Liberal insiders. We are trying to hold the government to account.

I actually do not know what the member was referring to. However, to try to deflect and take attention away from that issue by raising something else is to be complicit in that corruption.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to stray from the formula that has been playing out for the last few minutes and ask a question that has to do with the subject at hand. Actually, I will take up the question asked by my colleague opposite, which was indeed relevant, but I will add a few details.

This is not the first Liberal scandal we have seen. We all remember WE Charity. We remember ArriveCAN. It seems to be a common technique. Everyone in the House agrees that these documents should be produced.

Could my colleague tell us when we will be ready to vote on this to force the government to produce these documents?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that the Liberal government has far too often shirked its obligation to be accountable to Canadian taxpayers for money that so many Canadians have worked so hard for. The government is not accountable.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise on behalf of my constituents in Calgary Confederation, and I would like to speak to the matter before the House.

As many are already aware, we find ourselves debating an issue of great concern as you, Mr. Speaker, have found this Liberal government in contempt of the House for its failure to produce documents, specifically unredacted documents related to the Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, fund, which is a program widely known as the green slush fund. The Liberals' failure to produce unredacted documents is because of this Liberal government's mismanagement.

The green slush fund has been accused of giving grants to start-up businesses and developing accelerators with strong ties to senior management in this Liberal government, in violation of ethical behaviour. This is very concerning to us on the Conservative side of the House and obviously needs to be investigated to determine the facts and the appropriate course of action.

Of course, we are deeply concerned to hear about the damning facts from the Auditor General that would lead us all to believe that there may be some Liberal insiders who are lining their pockets with taxpayer dollars, while Canadians across this country are struggling to make ends meet. As I mentioned, the green slush fund management has been accused of giving questionable business grants to those with ties to senior management in the Liberal government. I stress, once again, that this needs to be properly investigated.

The Prime Minister's hand-picked chair of the green tech slush fund, Annette Verschuren, a long-time friend of the PM, siphoned $217,000 of taxpayer dollars from this green slush fund into her own company. The Ethics Commissioner also found that Ms. Verschuren broke the law by her actions of improperly furthering her private interests, and the interests of other companies she is associated with, by failing to recuse herself from the board's funding decisions. Ultimately, she ended up resigning. As members know, she resigned last year after she became the subject of this ethics investigation. On top of this, another Prime Minister-appointed green slush fund board member also broke ethics laws.

Now, Canadians deserve to have these green slush fund documents properly and thoroughly examined to determine who committed the wrongdoings and at whose direction. We know from the Auditor General that the wrongdoing discovered has not been appropriately addressed by this Liberal government; we know, because officials confirmed that there has been no action taken after proven gross mismanagement and conflicts of interest were found at the hands of this Liberal billion-dollar green slush fund.

I have listened to the Liberals over the past weeks on this issue trying to whitewash what is going on here. Instead of transparency and clarity, we have been met with silence, deflection and refusal to release all of the findings. What are they hiding?

It is important to remind Canadians of what we know, and what we know comes directly from the Auditor General. Canadians have deep respect for the independent Office of the Auditor General and the work it does daily to uncover mismanagement in this Liberal government.

I used to serve on the Standing Committee of Public Accounts, and the Auditor General, Karen Hogan, would regularly come to the meetings to report on the many files that her office forensically investigated. Each and every time, she provided valuable, objective, fact-based information and she gave expert advice on the findings.

The office is incredibly thorough in the audit work that it does to uncover any irregularities in the accounting and procedural practices of government programs. I was always highly impressed with the quality of work that she and her staff did while I served on the public accounts committee.

The Auditor General did look into the green slush fund and her findings were shocking. She and her office found the fund violated its conflict of interest policies 90 times. The fund awarded $59 million to 10 projects that were ineligible and the managers of these projects frequently overstated the required environmental benefits of their projects. The report from the Auditor General says things like, “Overall, we found significant lapses in Sustainable Development Technology Canada’s governance and stewardship of public funds.” The report also said that “ Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada did not sufficiently monitor the compliance with the contribution agreements between the foundation and the Government of Canada.” There is more from the Auditor General. The report also said, “We found that the foundation awarded funding to projects that were ineligible, that conflicts of interest existed in some instances, and that certain requirements in the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology Act were not met.”

It does not stop there. The report also says, “We found that the foundation awarded funding to 10 ineligible projects of 58 we examined. These 10 projects were awarded $59 million even though they did not meet key requirements set out in the contribution agreements between the government and the foundation.” There were 10 projects of the 58 that the Auditor General examined. We can imagine what would have been uncovered if all 58 projects had been examined by the Auditor General.

The Auditor General dropped another bombshell when she said in the report, “In addition, we estimated that 1 in 10 of the remaining Start‑up and Scale‑up projects approved during our audit period were also ineligible.” It is unbelievable that 10% of the projects were estimated to be ineligible. Who is lining whose pockets with this type of behaviour? We have good reason to be suspicious of those involved at the highest level because of what the Auditor General has discovered.

Let me go on with the report. It also said in the report, “...we found 90 cases that were connected to approval decisions, representing nearly $76 million in funding awarded to projects, where the foundation’s conflict-of-interest policies were not followed.” Therefore, it is no wonder that the Liberals are not keen to have anyone review these documents.

We also know from the Auditor General that attempts were made to keep the dirty circle of secrets as small as possible. The AG revealed that “The act requires that the foundation have a member council of 15 members.” That is 15 members to play an important role in representing Canadian taxpayers to oversee the ethical functioning of the foundation, while the green slush fund board of directors supported reducing that number from 15 down to two members. Why would directors of a $1-billion slush fund want to keep their circle so small, down to two members? Inquiring minds want to know. It is likely because they know it would be easier to get away with their dirty secrets if fewer people knew. We will only know if the proper investigation takes place and that is why the RCMP needs to have access to all the documents in an unredacted form.

I want to also mention a few other key findings from the Auditor General. The report states the fund's board approved 226 start-up, scale-up and ecosystem projects to receive $836 million. Of those projects, eight, totalling $51 million, did not meet eligibility criteria. For example, some projects “did not support the development or demonstration of a new technology, or their projected environmental benefits were unreasonable.”

It also says in the AG report that the AG estimated that one in 10 of the remaining 168 start-up and scale-up projects approved during the audit period, or 16 projects in total, were ineligible. Totalling $8 million, two ecosystem projects were ineligible, because “they did not fund or support the development or demonstration of a new technology”, and the board approved $20 million for seed projects without completing screening and assessments required by the contribution agreements with the government.

This is unbelievable, yet it is true. How can these Liberal members opposite find the gall to stand up here daily and suggest that this matter is not worthy of a full investigation? How can they look at themselves in the mirror and say that? This is troubling. The lack of transparency, accountability and integrity from the Liberal government is an issue that strikes at the very core of how we as Canadians expect our government to operate.

What was the incentive to break so many rules and who benefited? Who provided the direction to allow for so much of this mismanagement? We know that when people break rules, it is always for their personal gain at the expense of the greater good. Why would we expect this case to be any different and where has the Liberal Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry been all along? I can say he has likely been sleeping on the job here, and he must follow his green slush fund chairperson, Ms. Verschuren, in her steps and resign.

Canadians will remember the corruption of this Liberal government come the next election. I guarantee it. This Liberal government members are in full damage control right now in a desperate attempt to save their parliamentary jobs. It is no wonder the Liberals do not want to let Canadians anywhere near ballot box, because they know Canadians are itching to get rid of them. This is why we need an election now to let Canadians decide.

Canadians are paying attention to this. While they are struggling, this Liberal government ignores their plight. The real income of Canadians has plummeted to a level not seen in almost a decade. Paycheques are just not as powerful as they used to be. Canadians are falling behind as the cost of living increases faster than the ability of their paycheques to keep up. The dependency of Canadians on food banks is growing exponentially and shows no sign of slowing down. It is frankly shocking and deeply unsettling that people who have decent jobs are unable to put enough food on the table in a country like Canada.

We know housing in Canada is out of reach for basically anyone who does not already have a home. The price of housing, including rent, continues to outpace wages. Folks work harder and fall further behind. How is that right in a country like Canada? Canada's fastest-growing housing type is a tent. Tent cities, a phenomenon not really ever seen in Canada, are now a part of every city and even many towns. People just cannot afford to eat, heat or house themselves in Canada today. How desperate must life be, when one lives in a tent in the winter here in Canada? That is why Canadians are so concerned and why they are so angered when they hear of Liberals lining their pockets.

Canadians know that the government is beyond repair and that it is time for an election. However, any election should not and will not eliminate our calls for accountability when it comes to the slush fund. We will get to the truth of the matter. We owe it to Canadians to pursue the facts and to hold the people responsible for the mismanagement accountable. If there is criminality, we owe it to Canadians to pursue charges against the people involved.

Millions of Canadians are struggling to pay rent, pay their mortgage, put food on their table and put gas in their car. Nonetheless, they go to work every day and they pay their taxes. We need to make sure we treat those hard-working Canadians with utmost respect. Every tax dollar is a missed meal, a missed night out, a new pair of jeans or a visit to a sick relative. Taxes are essential for our society, but they come with a cost to the individual. We need to ensure that if we are going to deprive Canadians of a home of their own, a haircut or a new book, we do it with the utmost necessity and spend the money as if it were our own.

I can assure the House that not a single member opposite mismanages their personal finances at a level that the Liberals do when it comes to our money, the money of Canadian taxpayers. I am just astounded that the Liberal MPs opposite continue to defend and support their party leader and the disgusting behaviour of their governance. What will their children and grandchildren think of them when the truth finally gets out? It will get out.

The Speaker, of all people, knows how important it is that Canadians have faith in and respect for our institutions. That faith and respect come when people see that our institutions are functioning as intended, rules are being followed and individuals are not personally enriching themselves with tax dollars.

To restore faith in Parliament, faith in government, we need to ensure that a proper investigation is done, which is possible only when the RCMP has everything it needs to do a proper review. Therefore the Liberal government must release the documents now.

Moving forward, there are steps to rebuilding trust and accountability. The Auditor General's report is not just criticism but also a call to action. We need to take the following steps to address the issue. First of all, the minister needs to resign. Second, the new minister needs to implement four things. They need to strengthen the oversight mechanism; this is essential. We need clear, robust guidelines for the allocation of funds, with a transparent review process to ensure that projects that meet strict environmental criteria receive support. We also need regular audits by the Auditor General to monitor how funds are being used. We need a commitment to true sustainability; we must focus on the original purpose of the fund's investing in projects that generally contribute to a cleaner, greener future. We need public engagement; the public deserves to know how its money is being spent.

In conclusion, the green slush fund was intended to be a catalyst for positive environmental change; instead, it has been a disappointing fiasco. It is imperative that we address the issues head-on and reaffirm our commitment to transparency, accountability and sustainability.