Debates of Oct. 21st, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite rich for a member of the NDP to talk about how virtuous they are with regard to holding the government to account. The New Democrats have voted with the government to prop it up. They have voted for budgets hundreds of times. They are in a coalition. They have shut down debate in the House at the request of their Liberal masters. When the Liberals say “jump”, the NDP asks, “How high?” That is how this has gone for nine years, and people know the truth of that.

These documents need to be given to the RCMP. They need to be unredacted and need to be produced. That could end the whole debate right now.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the SDTC scandal. The organization had a key mandate. It was federally funded, non-profit and approved to disburse over $100 million in funds annually to clean-technology companies. Sustainable Development Technology Canada was established in 2001 by the Government of Canada through the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology Act to fund the development and demonstration of new technologies that promote sustainable development.

It was to be an arm's-length, not-for-profit organization, created to support projects that developed and demonstrated new technologies addressing issues related to climate change, air quality, clean water and clean soil. Clearly, it must have functioned quite well until around 2017-18, when the government changed hands and it fell under the responsibility of our Liberal government; actually, the Liberal government. I have trouble saying “our” because I do not feel it is representing me or my riding.

In 2018, former Liberal industry minister Navdeep Bains expressed concerns regarding the Harper-era chair of SDTC, Jim Balsillie, given his public criticism of government privacy legislation. The minister's office expressed its discomfort about Mr. Balsillie's comments to the CEO of SDTC, and Mr. Bains requested that the chair stop criticizing government legislation. At that point, the minister proposed two alternative chairs to the CEO of SDTC as replacements, in a phone call.

One of the candidates proposed was Annette Verschuren, an entrepreneur who was receiving SDTC funding through one of her companies. The minister, the PMO and the PCO were warned of the risks associated with appointing a conflicted chair and were told that, up until that point, the fund had never had a chair with interests in companies receiving funding from SDTC.

It sounds like it was run well with proper oversight. However, in June 2019, former minister Bains decided to proceed with the appointment of Ms. Verschuren despite repeated warnings expressed at his office. The new chair went on to create an environment where conflicts of interest were tolerated and managed by board members. Board members went on to award SDTC funding to companies they held stock or positions in. Former minister Bains went on to appoint two other controversial board members who engaged in unethical behaviour, in breach of the Conflict of Interest Act, by approving funding to companies in which they held ownership stakes.

This is beyond the pale for Canadians. They are at the point where they wonder if there is anything the current government does that does not serve itself or those who are part of its larger group. ISED officials witnessed 186 conflicts at the board, but they did not intervene.

In January 2021, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain became the new Minister of Industry, replacing Navdeep Bains after his decision not to run for re-election. Mr. Bains, I guess, felt that would be a wise decision on his part.

In November 2022, whistle-blowers raised internal concerns with the Auditor General about unethical practices that were taking place. The Privy Council was briefed by the whistle-blowers about the allegations shortly after, and it commissioned two independent reports.

In September 2023, the whistle-blowers took the allegations public, and the minister agreed, finally, to suspend SDTC funding. Things were a mess.

In November 2023, the Auditor General announced an audit, and in June 2024, the Auditor General's report was released, finding severe government failures. The Auditor General and Ethics Commissioner initiated these separate investigations after whistle-blowers came forward with allegations of financial mismanagement at the fund. I have to say, it is an amazing thing when people are willing to put their reputations, their lives and their futures on the line because they see something like this taking place within the government. I applaud them for making that decision and for moving forward with that.

I am going to take a moment here to share some of the words from the whistle-blower that were shared as committee testimony:

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

I know that the federal government, like the minister, has continued saying that there was no criminal intent and nothing was found, but I think the committee would agree that they're not to be trusted on this situation.

What a sad comment to be made of a government that is responsible for Canadian taxpayers' dollars.

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.

Of course, my colleagues on this side of the House and I could not agree more.

I don't think we should leave it to the current federal government or the ruling party to make those decisions.

Obviously, there is an incredible lack of trust among our public servants who are responsible for working with these organizations that they see clearly are being abused by the federal government.

Just as I was always confident that the Auditor General would confirm the financial mismanagement...I remain equally confident that the RCMP will substantiate the criminal activities that occurred within the organization.

There is one more that I think is really important. It really hit me when I read what he said:

The true failure of the situation stands at the feet of our current government, whose decision to protect wrongdoers and cover up their findings over the last 12 months is a serious indictment of how our democratic systems and institutions are being corrupted by political interference.

The political interference level of the Liberal-NDP government, I think, is beyond anything in the history of Canada. We are dealing with internal political interference and international interference under the current government's watch.

It should never have taken two years for the issues to reach this point. What should have been a straightforward process turned into a bureaucratic nightmare that allowed SDTC to continue wasting millions of [taxpayer] dollars and abusing countless employees over the last year.

That really hit me, of course, the wasting of Canadian taxpayer dollars, especially when it is related to supposedly doing things that would improve our environment. The government cannot get off its need to tax Canadians with the carbon tax because of the work that needs to be done to make sure our country and our world are sustainable for the next generations. In the meantime, it is taking those exact dollars set aside for green technologies and improvements and giving them quietly to companies that have ulterior motives for that money and no intention of using it for supposed environmental processes.

When Canadians who are paying that carbon tax are not getting back what they have put into it, and are facing higher costs for fuel, food, housing and everything because of the added down-the-line costs of that carbon tax, we know where it is leading Canadians. We know how desperate they are in wanting a new future for Canada, which, of course, will come when the Conservative Party of Canada has the incredible honour of forming government soon.

On the second part, the “abusing [of] countless employees over the last year”, the government talks about how much it appreciates the people behind the scenes, and the high quality of people who serve the government. Here we have an individual talking about how it abused countless employees. This speaks to a government that is not a servant but rather a master, determining that what it wants will happen. It is the government's way or the highway and who is in the way does not matter; it is willing to throw them under the bus.

There are so many violations here of Canadians' trust. My colleague from Saskatoon West spoke of many other issues the government has been part of, all the way back to the ad scam and up to the WE challenge. There are just so many. I have one myself that I cannot help but recall, which really hit me as a new member of Parliament when I had the opportunity to speak for the first time to an issue in the House of Commons.

It was a bill brought forward by the federal government to be discussed. It was actually the first debate I participated in that sought to remove the government's accountability to the House. It was in regard to an environmental framework, and the bill sought to give sweeping power to the minister and accountability to an advisory board.

I was somewhat concerned about this. I had not heard a lot about this approach, so I asked the individual who had spoken, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, about this board: what it was supposed to look like, how it would function, how many people would be on it, where they would come from, what their qualifications and credentials would be, what their mandate would be and all of these types of questions. We were at the beginning of discussing the potential of this bill and wanting to give good feedback on what we thought was appropriate or not.

That member stood up and immediately was so pleased to say that the board had already been chosen. We were in the first hours of debate, and the deal was done. This gives just a bit of an example of how the government really does not care about the elected people representing this country and how they are to function within the responsibilities of Parliament.

As I said, so many violations have been discussed throughout the day, in addition to the green slush fund, that I cannot help but notice how much Canadians' trust in this particular NDP-Liberal coalition, and in government in general and many of our institutions, is waning. Canadians are very discouraged because they see these ethical violations taking place over and over again on that side of the floor, yet the government has no sense of having to apologize or to change its behaviour on behalf of Canadians.

Abusing employees is something else. The Liberals enabled the SDTC to give funds to those who should not have received those funds. I cannot help but think it is a very good thing we made the decision to request that these papers get to the RCMP so that criminality can be explored.

Then there is the question of financial management. People say we can give the benefit of the doubt the first time we hear of an error. I believe the new minister even said, “As soon as we heard, we acted.” Well, two years later, it is the result of whistle-blowers that we are here dealing with this today.

Are the Liberals not capable of running the government in a respectful, transparent way that makes proper use of Canadian tax dollars? Are they not capable, or are they just indifferent? Here the Liberals are, in places of power, and not truly giving proper oversight to the departments they are responsible for. That speaks not only to indifference but to the potential for being incapable of doing their job and of ensuring their departments are being run properly.

Then there is the third thing, and I think this is the one that is now so obvious to Canadians, which is that of a very self-serving agenda. That it is not about Canadians and is not about serving Canadians, but is about Liberals serving themselves and their friends and being focused on political gain at all costs rather than doing the right thing for Canadians.

The Auditor General's report showed that over $400 million, over the five-year audit period, had been awarded to projects that either should not have been eligible or was awarded to projects in which the board members were conflicted. A preschooler could understand the importance of doing this properly. If the Liberal government knew these are the things that were expected in these roles, it would see very clearly that this did not match that.

On the part about speaking about indifference and self-serving, I want to follow it up with a quote I have used before that speaks to the very essence of what we are hearing in this circumstance and in so many other conflicts by the government, which is, “It's hard not to feel disappointed in your government when every day there is a new scandal.” These are the words of the Prime Minister, as the member for Papineau, when he was in opposition.

Liberals have said a lot that we Conservatives cannot blame them because we did the same thing. This is not true.

[An hon. member]

Why not?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

We will get into that.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's words absolutely ring true today.

After nine years of scandal, corruption and Liberal entitlement, the business of the House has been put on hold to discuss this scandal of monumental proportions and to request and demand what should be done by the government, which is to simply release those documents, as the government has been required to do by this place by the vote of the membership of the House, who have the right to demand those documents be presented unredacted. The documents should not be presented in piecemeal, but be presented as required.

As the Speaker of the House indicated, the government was not doing that. Those documents need to be shared and they need to be provided to the RCMP so that the proper work can be done, work that respects Canadians' intelligence, their hearts and their love for this country, as well as their tax dollars.

I want to comment on a couple more things. The Auditor General gave SDTC a clean bill of health in 2017. What does that say? It was only after the Prime Minister's hand-picked Liberal board members were appointed that this fund began voting itself absurd amounts of taxpayer dollars, and it is not arm's length from the government.

The minister recommended board appointments, and ISED had senior department officials sitting in on every meeting monitoring the activities of the board and doing nothing about it. It is unbelievable that a senior department official would say nothing while witnessing how many millions of dollars were funnelled to companies in which board members held conflicts of interest.

I will end with one more quote. Basically, the Prime Minister himself, in 2016, was saying how proud he was to be the Prime Minister, which meant first servant of Canadians. However, he also made the point of saying that Canada was “the first postnational state”, which to me was a very serious comment that basically indicated he was not concerned about Canada and what it is. He was not concerned about its sovereignty, but it was a post-national state that he was prepared to run into the ground for his own ideological purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative reformers across the way need to better understand why Stephen Harper was the only Prime Minister in the history of Canada who was found in contempt. Why is that relevant? Think of the character of the current leader of the Conservatives. Their current leader was the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister back then.

Why would someone not understand why it is important that the leader of the Conservative Party is saying that he does not want to get the security clearance so he can get more information about members of Parliament? Maybe the member can provide her response to this quote by Wesley Wark, who has advised both Liberal and Conservative governments on national security issues, who said that the “Tory leader is knowingly misleading the public by claiming he doesn't need the security clearance because his chief of staff has received briefings.”

The leader of the Conservative Party is playing games with Canadians. When is the game going to stop, and when will he be getting that security clearance?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the floor is playing games. That is the bottom line.

Here is the thing. Who is in contempt of court? It is the NDP-Liberal coalition. It is time to give those papers to the House and the RCMP. The Liberals should do their job.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague did a good job of taking up a lot of time in the House of Commons to say that the documents must be handed over. I am going to share something that should not be a news flash. We all agree on that, and we are ready to vote to force the government to hand over those documents.

Could she let me know when the Conservatives will be ready to vote? I think everyone could be ready today or tomorrow. We are ready. The vote will pass. The Bloc Québécois will support the Conservatives on this.

Are they ready to vote on this?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, what we are requesting and what we expect is for the government do the right thing and hand over those documents.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that struck me was the word “self-serving”. There are many examples, but one that comes to mind is one of the board members receiving a quarter of a million dollars for her companies. The Minister for Environment and Climate Change was a lobbyist for them, has shares in a company and met with the PM's office a dozen times before getting elected.

I wonder if the member would comment a bit more on that, as far as the almost self-serving, incestuous relationship that the Liberals seem to have with the slush fund.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment continually chides people about the need for the carbon tax and the reason the carbon tax has to go up and up, to the point where it is basically debilitating Canadians in being able to function in their homes and run their businesses.

All of the things that Canadians need to do are being impacted by this carbon tax, yet this individual has personally gained in those circumstances and this slush fund has handed out millions of Canadian tax dollars to companies that are not eligible for the funds and are not even doing anything specific to improve the environment, something very important to me, my constituents and the whole province of Saskatchewan. We have been concerned about the Canadian environment as a whole and certainly where we work and play.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have asked two or three times now what could be done to prevent this kind of situation from ever happening again. This does not seem to be of any interest to the Conservatives.

The Conservatives have also been reprimanded for refusing to table documents at Parliament's request. We agree that the Liberals are no better.

What guarantee do we have that the Conservatives will not do the same thing after a few years in power if they form government?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it was the Conservative government that created the first Federal Accountability Act. Can members imagine where we would be today if it had not put the things in place that it did? Those things apply as much to Conservatives, when we form government, as anyone who has that privilege and responsibility.

I am very proud of the leader of my party, who has made it clear that “prime minister” means “first servant”. As a caucus, when Conservatives form government, we will hold each other accountable. That is what Conservatives do and that certainly will be our responsibility. We will continue to make sure that what happens in this place is done ethically and in Canadians' best interests.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a straightforward question. For the last three weeks, the Conservatives have framed the situation as being solely a partisan issue from a Liberal insider who, I agree, received favourable treatment and self-dealings and acted in a corrupt way.

However, would the hon. member care to comment on the fact that the same person in question, Annette Verschuren, donated to the Conservative Party as recently as March 24, 2022? This is a situation where not only is the person a Liberal insider, but a Conservative insider as well. Does the hon. member care to comment or do Conservatives seem to have amnesia on that fact as well?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not care who gives money where; they do not have a right to break the law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had members from the member opposite's ranks today say, “Tell us the names of the 11 MPs dealing with foreign interference.”

If he were to get security clearance, the leader of the Conservative Party could go and get the names. However, unlike the leader of the Bloc, the leader of the Green Party, the leader of the NDP and obviously the Prime Minister, he has chosen to be blind on the issue.

Can the member justify why the leader of the Conservative Party feels it is appropriate to play games with Canadians on this important issue?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the one playing games is the person across the floor.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government is rife with corruption. For those at home wondering, this is one of three green-related scandals going on right now: Of course, there is the green slush fund; there is one involving the environment department giving out millions in grants to massive corporations without any oversight or governance; and also the net-zero accelerator, where the government gave out $8 billion to wealthy foreign corporations that were not eligible for the money.

I wonder if my colleague could tell us what it says about the government, that it has so many scandals going on that it has subsets of subsets of subsets of scandals.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, here is what I would say: Somebody needs to write a book, or at least document, maybe do a movie someday, I do not know.

I do not think the Liberals have any item of business in this House that is not somehow impacted by their choices to focus on self and those that support them, rather than do what is best for Canadians. I can hardly wait until we have the opportunity to change government.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to be pre-empting anybody in this place, but because I do not know if I will be on my feet in this place tomorrow, I do want to say something quickly.

Tomorrow is October 22. It was 10 years ago tomorrow that I and a handful of people, who still remain in this place, had the unfortunate scenario of being locked down in the House of Commons. I was in the reading room of the Conservative caucus with former prime minister Stephen Harper when a gunman killed Corporal Nathan Cirillo at the National War Memorial and then proceeded into this place. I know that there will be people commenting about this, but I want to give my continued condolences to the family of Patrice Vincent, the warrant officer who was killed a few days earlier, and to the family of Nathan Cirillo.

I am also thankful for the continued work of our Parliamentary Protective Services. It was not that way then; in fact, the contingent was reorganized after that incident. However, I want thank J.J. Frankie, who was the security guard in our caucus room that day, and Constable Son, who actually took a bullet that day. I want to thank all the Protective Services. As a hunter, I knew exactly what I heard outside the doors of that caucus room. In the almost 19 years of doing this job, I do not remember every single day, but I remember that day.

I rise today to speak to a motion of privilege put forward by my Conservative colleague following the government's refusal to hand over all documents related to the Prime Minister's green slush fund to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

In my 18-plus years as a parliamentarian in the House, I have understood that breaches of privilege of parliamentarians is a serious matter, however, it seems that the current Liberal government does not share that same understanding. The Liberal government has ignored the will of Parliament and Canadians once again.

I will go back and summarize this latest act of corruption by the Liberal government with a quick review of the timeline.

In late 2018, the former industry minister expressed concerns regarding the chair of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, given that he had been publicly criticizing government legislation at the time. The then minister's office requested that the chair stop criticizing his government's legislation. The minister at the time, the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office were warned of the risks associated with their desire to replace the chair with a proposed candidate who was receiving Sustainable Development Technology Canada funding through one of their companies, which was a clear conflict of interest.

In June 2019, the minister decided to proceed with the appointment of the conflicted chair, despite repeated warnings expressed to the minister's office. The new chair created an environment where conflicts of interest were tolerated and managed by board members.

Board members then went on to award Sustainable Development Technology Canada funding to companies in which they themselves held stock or high-level positions within the companies that received the funding. Two additional appointed and controversial board members engaged in unethical behaviour in breach of the Conflict of Interest Act by approving funding to companies in which they held ownership stakes. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada officials witnessed 186 conflicts at the board but did not intervene.

In November 2022, whistle-blowers raised internal concerns with the Auditor General about unethical practices at Sustainable Development Technology Canada. The Privy Council was briefed by the whistle-blowers about the allegations shortly after the commission's two independent reports.

In September 2023, the whistle-blowers took the allegations public and the minister agreed to suspend Sustainable Development Technology Canada funding.

In November 2023, the Auditor General announced an audit of Sustainable Development Technology Canada. In June 2024, the Auditor General's report was released finding severe governance failures at Sustainable Development Technology Canada, and that brings us to where we are today.

On June 10, the House adopted a motion calling for the production of various documents related to Sustainable Development Technology Canada to be turned over to the RCMP for review. It was passed by a majority of members in the House.

In response to the motion adopted, departments either outright refused the House order or redacted documents were turned over, citing provisions of the Privacy Act or Access to Information Act in direct violation of the order that was voted on by a majority of members of the House. Nothing in that House order required redactions. The House enjoys the absolute and unfettered power to order the production of documents that is not limited by any statute. These powers are rooted in the Constitution Act of 1867 and the Parliament of Canada Act.

In response to the failure to produce documents, my colleague, the Conservative House leader, raised a question of privilege, arguing that House privilege had been breached due to the failure to comply with the House's direct order.

On September 26, the ruling on this question of privilege found that the privilege of the House had indeed been breached, and the Conservatives have been fighting for the will of Canadians and to uphold the powers of the House in debate ever since.

The whistle-blower for Sustainable Development Technology Canada stated:

I think the Auditor General's investigation was more of a cursory review. I don't think the goal and mandate of the Auditor General's office is to actually look into criminality...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

The whistle-blower went on:

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.

Full authority means that it has to have all of the facts, not just the facts that the government chooses to release in direct contravention of an order passed by the House. It is high time for the government to hand over the documents to the RCMP and for the RCMP itself to determine the criminal activity in the green slush fund scandal.

The whistle-blower continued, stating:

...I...[am] confident that the Auditor General would confirm the financial mismanagement at [Sustainable Development Technology Canada], I remain equally confident that the RCMP will substantiate the criminal activities that occurred within the organization.

...The true failure of the situation stands at the feet of our current government, whose decision to protect wrongdoers and cover up their findings over the last 12 months is a serious indictment of how our democratic systems and institutions are being corrupted by political interference. It should never have taken two years for the issues to reach this point. What should have been a straightforward process turned into a bureaucratic nightmare that allowed SDTC to continue wasting millions of dollars and abusing countless employees over the last year.

The Conservatives know that the current government remains more concerned about its own insiders, friends and ministers than the issues that are facing ordinary everyday Canadians. I could not have said it better myself than when the whistle-blower for this massive government overreach said, “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 [Sustainable Development Technology Canada] in the public sphere.”

It has become abundantly clear that after nine years, the NDP-Liberal government is not worth the cost, crime or corruption, and the green slush fund scandal is just another scandal on the heap pile of the festering corruption of nine years of the government.

My Conservative colleagues and I prioritize the concept of responsible government in Canada. The government must answer to members as the representatives of the people and must be held accountable to Canadians who are suffering from the failed policies, actions and inflationary spending of the government.

In 2015, the Prime Minister set his core principles of open and accountable government as a central tenet of his office and the role of cabinet. For years, the actions of the Liberal government have broken promises for this motto and now has failed to explain to Canadians where $400 million taxpayer dollars have gone under the green slush fund. Just to refresh everybody's memory, the $40 million through the adscam was just one-tenth of what this scandal alone is.

The Prime Minister's own statement in “Open and Accountable Government” states:

Creating the culture of integrity and accountability that allows us to earn and keep the trust of Canadians will require constant attention and ongoing commitment by all of us throughout our mandate. This guide will serve as an important reference as we strive to provide an open and accountable government for all Canadians.

How has that turned out? Broken promises, corruption and scandal are now known by millions of Canadians as the core principles and tenets of the Liberal government and its Prime Minister, rather than their so-called open and accountable government document. The Liberals never refer to it anymore.

The Speaker has ruled that the NDP-Liberal government has violated a House order to turn over evidence to the police for a criminal investigation in this scandal. It is time for some accountability, and it is time to show Canadians where their tax dollars are really going.

The Auditor General's findings reveal that Liberal appointees paid $400 million to their own companies, involving not one, not two, not 10, not 50, not 100 but 186 conflicts of interest. Canada is struggling. Our country feels broken under the leadership of the Prime Minister and his NDP-Liberal government.

Canadian families will spend $700 more this year at the grocery store, and food banks have seen a 50% rise in visits since 2021, with two million Canadians a month visiting food banks. Life has never been less affordable and more expensive. At a time when Canadians are struggling with an impossible cost of living, the Liberal government continues to spend recklessly, funnelling taxpayer dollars to their friends and their insiders.

To summarize the facts and this serious breach of privilege, Sustainable Development Technology Canada was established in 2001 by the Government of Canada through the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology Act to fund the development and demonstration of new technologies that promote sustainable development. Sustainable Development Technology Canada is responsible for the administration of the SD tech fund in accordance with the guidelines of the funding agreement with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.

In 2019, the former industry minister began appointing conflicted executives to the board of Sustainable Development Technology Canada. The board appointed by the Liberal government began voting companies in which executives held active conflicts of interest. The Auditor General and Ethics Commissioner initiated separate investigations after whistle-blowers came forward with allegations of financial mismanagement of the fund. The Auditor General's investigation finds severe gaps in governance standards and uncovers that $400 million in Sustainable Development Technology Canada funding was awarded to projects in which board members, the ones making the decisions of the awards, were conflicted during the five-year audit period.

The government has opposed the opposition at every step of the way in getting these documents, trying to silence the will of parliamentarians in the House and avoid accountability to Canadians. The Liberals are trying to hide the $390 million that has gone to Liberal insiders under this program. They continue to oppose this production order for important documents to be turned over to the RCMP.

The Prime Minister's personal department, the Privy Council Office, defied the order of the House to produce these documents and ordered departments to redact all sensitive information. The Prime Minister's office turned its back on Canadians by blacking out these documents. Canadians want to know what exactly the government is hiding. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, Canada is facing corruption like we have never seen in my 18 years in the House.

The Conservatives have asked for these documents to hold the Liberal government to account. My voters in the riding of Red Deer—Lacombe have had enough and want answers. The government needs to answer for its corrupt actions and release these documents. The Liberal government is resisting and hiding these documents because it knows there is corruption that has yet to be revealed. If this were a private sector company, that company would be turning those documents over to police for immediate investigation.

This is our job, not the job of police to seek with the courts. It is our job to expose the corruption in the things we have authorized money for in this Parliament. It is our job, and it is time that the Liberal minister and the Prime Minister started caring about it.

The Auditor General found that Sustainable Development Technology Canada gave $58 million to 10 ineligible projects that, on occasions, could not demonstrate an environment of green technology. These projects had nothing to do with the mandate of the organization. There was $334 million given to projects in which board members had conflicts of interest. In these cases, just a handful of board members managed to wind up in 186 conflicts of interest. We cannot make this stuff up.

There was $58 million given to projects without ensuring that contribution agreement terms were met. In other words, where there were matching funds expected, there was no requirement for the matching funding to come, so we would just send out another $60 million. Normally we would do due diligence and make sure that, before we released any taxpayers' funds, the matching funding would come. Who cares? It is just another rich day for Liberal insiders.

Even the Prime Minister's own government departments know that the Liberal government is not worth the corruption or the cost. A recording of a senior civil servant revealed the outright incompetence of the government, which gave 123 million dollars' worth of contracts inappropriately. The blame for this scandal clearly lies with the Prime Minister and his ministers of industry, who did not sufficiently monitor the contracts that were given to Liberal friends and insiders.

In fact, just today, the Speaker tabled a further update from the legal clerk on the responses to the June 10 production order concerning Sustainable Development Technology Canada. It would not come as a surprise to anyone in this place that these documents from the departments of Finance and Industry, as well as the Treasury Board Secretariat, were heavily redacted or had pages withheld in their entirety. What a surprise it is that, even in the context of the debate in this place, the Liberal government is withholding information from Canadian taxpayers. This privilege ruling and the actions of the NDP-Liberal government have already paralyzed Parliament and made it impossible to address the serious issues facing Canadians, such as doubling housing costs, food inflation, crime and chaos.

I will just remind the viewers at home that this is not the first time we have actually been in this scenario. I hope the Speaker has good legal counsel because the precedent has already been set that, in the event that the House is adjourned, the Speaker could be facing legal consequences. The scandals are too numerous to mention. However, in just one of them, the Winnipeg lab scandal, the last Speaker tried to produce documents. The government was actually going to take the Speaker to court in order to cover up its accountability and its actions, or lack thereof, when it came to protecting Canada's sovereignty. Such are the lengths the government will go to.

I have news for government members about the lengths that Conservatives will go to in order to hold the government to account and to make sure that taxpayers are adequately informed about where their hard-earned dollars are going. We will continue this debate until the result that Canadians deserve and expect is produced, which is that the full, unredacted documents are disclosed here in Parliament and turned over to the RCMP so that we can pursue any criminality, if necessary, within Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

It is time for the Prime Minister to take accountability and provide these documents outlining the conflicts of interest of this green slush fund. Only common-sense Conservatives will end the corruption and get the answers that Canadians rightfully deserve.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one issue I was talking about earlier is one of the various green scandals that the government is mired in, which is the net accelerator. The Auditor General noted that $8 billion had been given away to companies, many of which do not even qualify. Looking at it, I saw that one of the companies that received government funding is a company called Geely. It received $15 million in subsidies. Geely is a Chinese-owned EV company, which is now, of course, subject to a 100% tariff on its cars.

Could the member comment on the ridiculousness of using taxpayers' money to subsidize Chinese EVs at the same time as hitting them with 100% tariffs to stop them from bringing their cars into Canada?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if someone ever wanted to hear a rhetorical question, that was one. This speaks to the broader issue of the profligacy of the government. It will spend money on anything it wants to put in a window to showcase. The government is all about virtue signalling, messaging, appearances and optics. It is not about good governance or making responsible decisions.

We see what the government has been about the whole time. Finally, after nine years, Canadians see it. The only way to find a path forward is to have these documents produced to the House and to the RCMP. If that is not going to happen, then the people of Canada should have their say in an election to decide whether they want to continue allowing the government to spend the way it spends and commit the corruption that it commits. I hope that a Conservative government will follow, restoring some sense of accountability and good governance to this once-proud country.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been discussing this issue for about two weeks now.

It seems pretty clear that everyone in the House agrees on this issue. The NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives agree. What we want to know is what we are accomplishing here.

Last week, a study in La Presse reported that the number of homeless people who have died on the streets of Quebec has tripled over the past five years. In Quebec, over the past five years, 200 people died on the streets in the cold. If we extrapolate, that means that in Canada as a whole, 700 to 800 people died on the streets. That is a direct result of the housing crisis, which we are currently not talking about in the House because we are wasting time discussing a motion that everyone agrees on. We agree on accountability. We agree on the need for more transparency. We are ready to vote on this motion.

What are the Conservatives waiting for to bring this motion to a vote?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if we all agreed in the House, then the document would have been produced as requested. To suggest that we all agree is to say something that is simply not true. The government does not agree, which is why it is failing to fulfill the order passed in the House, which is to provide, unredacted, all the documents requested.

I will say to my colleague from the Bloc Québécois that, if he is dissatisfied with how the people of Quebec are suffering under the Liberal government, then he has to answer for the fact that he voted to sustain the government in matters of confidence. Canadians have had enough. He has had enough. Instead of this dystopian Parliament that exists without the support of Canadians, my colleague should be supporting non-confidence and making sure that we move to an election so that Canadians, and Quebeckers, can have their say.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is nothing but a game for the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative caucus. At the end of the day, if the Conservatives stop talking, it passes. The Liberal Party wants to see it go to committee. The Conservatives know that, but the games continue.

The only government to be held in contempt of Parliament, in the history of Canada and the Commonwealth, is Stephen Harper's government. When he was prime minister, who was the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister? It was none other than the leader of the Conservative Party. Today, we have the leader of the Conservative Party saying he does not even want to get the security clearance. The question is why.

What is the history? What does the leader of the Conservative Party have to hide? Why is he not being accountable to the public, to the Canadian people?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is just a red herring that the parliamentary secretary continues to bring up in the House.

Members of Parliament from all political parties have security clearances. The leader of the Conservative Party has said quite clearly that, if the Prime Minister and his cabinet and caucus are so sure of themselves, they can simply release the names. I urge my colleague who asked the question to go to caucus this week and bring this up, that is, if they are not dealing with something else.