Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet at this time, and when we see this Liberal government giving cushy, multi-million dollar contracts to their friends, Canadians feel cheated. Imagine being a taxpayer who is struggling to pay the rent or to buy food, and then to hear that billions of their tax dollars were being wasted by government.

Food will cost families $700 more this year than it did last year. Food insecurity has become such a problem in this country that, since 2021, food banks have seen a 50% increase in visits. According to the latest data from Statistics Canada, 8.7 million Canadians were food insecure in 2023, including 2.1 million children. Even poverty diseases like scurvy are resurfacing in Canada, and doctors are being warned to look out for them.

We are in a crisis. We have never seen this kind of government waste and suffering of Canadians before in this nation. Yet, here we are debating a matter of privilege, because this government's negligence, incompetence and corruption have resurfaced in the most recent scandal. The negligence continues because, after nine long years, this Liberal administration is being propped up by the NDP.

We would not be here today spending days debating this matter of parliamentary privilege if this government was prioritizing the best interests of Canadians. Instead of debating, we would be working on issues that are impacting Canadians, including record high inflation, cost of living, a housing crisis, a crime crisis and chaos in the streets. These are crises that have erupted because of the failed policies and leadership of this Prime Minister and his NDP coalition partners.

While this is happening, the government has once again chosen to serve its best interests and not the best interests of Canadians. It has failed to take the ethical path and to demonstrate leadership, transparency and accountability by handing over the documents that are at the very centre of this motion and at the very centre of the $400-million scandal. Let us now review some of the history that has got us to this point.

Sustainable Development Technology Canada was a $1-billion fund that was supported by multiple governments. In fact, it ran smoothly without incident up—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rises on a point of order. It was referred to that we have record inflation, but when we do a quick search, we had record inflation under Brian Mulroney—

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

That is a point of debate. The hon. member can make reference to it in his question.

The hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, in reviewing the history, Sustainable Development Technology Canada was a one billion dollar fund that was supported by multiple governments and ran smoothly, in fact, without incident until 2017. It was designed with the noble cause of helping green technology start-ups get off the ground, with some government support in order to accelerate action on climate and the environment. Then the Prime Minister appointed a new Liberal board chair to the SDTC.

However, after the Conservatives put forward a motion asking for the Auditor General to conduct audits into the SDTC, she found that the fund had approved projects for funding that were ineligible for taxpayer funds. She further found that SDTC executives violated at least $400 million of taxpayer funds. Eighty per cent of the cases the Auditor General looked at had conflicts of interest. She also found that the green slush fund had frequently overstated the environmental benefit of the projects they funded.

We know that the Auditor General's findings were just the tip of the iceberg. She did not conduct an exhaustive audit. She just looked at a sample of cases and investigated them. This sample revealed such conflicts of interest that are a part of this privilege motion today, yet 80% of those cases were found in violation of the law.

We also know that some of those at the centre of the scandal, the Liberal-appointed board members who benefited from these contracts, managed to jump ship and secure other government-appointed positions.

One of the green slush fund directors, Andrée-Lise Méthot, actually admitted to several conflicts of interest with funds that went to companies in which she had a financial interest. In fact, the Minister of Environment, prior to joining cabinet, served as a strategic adviser for a venture capital firm called Cycle Capital from 2009 to 2018. This is the same firm that Ms. Méthot founded and was the managing partner of, the same firm that received a significant amount of SDTC funding while she sat on the board.

As this scandal was coming out, she was then coincidentally appointed to the board of the $35 billion Canada Infrastructure Bank. This is the same bank where Liberal-friendly McKinsey consultants have been deeply involved. She went from one plum board appointment to another, even after finding that she had engaged in conflicts of interest by enriching companies in which she had an interest while she sat on the board. She has since resigned, but yet Ms. Méthot is implicated in mishandling $42 million of taxpayer funds by awarding contracts to companies in which she had financial interest.

At the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the Conservatives are, right now, trying to get to the bottom of this scandal. We have put forward a motion to investigate this issue. It is completely unacceptable that those who repeatedly violate conflict of interest policies should be promoted to plum government positions because they have connections with Liberal insiders. How is it that the government thought it was perfectly fine to appoint her to the Canada Infrastructure Bank after she was found to have violated conflict of interest laws to enrich her own company?

In light of all these egregious refusals to honour the authority of Parliament and to act in a way that is befitting of the Canadian democracy, the Conservatives have been forced to put forward a motion in the House to demand that the government get to the bottom of the green slush fund scandal by handing over all the files, communications and financial records to Parliament. Parliament would then hand over all documents to the RCMP for further investigation. However, after that motion passed, the 30-day deadline came and went without action.

What did we find? Some departments partially complied and some blatantly disobeyed the order. The government failed to hand over the documents and fell into contempt of this Parliament. The Speaker of the House ruled on this matter and stated, “In some instances, only partial disclosures were made, owing either to redactions or the withholding of documents. In other instances, the House order was met with a complete refusal.”

The Department of Justice alone withheld 10,000 pages from Parliament. The Speaker of the House decided the matter of privilege, ruling that the Liberals violated the will of Parliament to turn over the evidence so that the RCMP could conduct the criminal investigation. Since then, the RCMP has confirmed that it is indeed investigating this scandal and that it is ongoing.

This is not a trivial political matter. This is not a trivial matter that has seized the House. The RCMP is not investigating because the Conservative opposition has directed it to do so. It is, in fact, an independent agency. It is investigating because there are reasonable grounds upon which to base an investigation into offences committed under the Criminal Code. Once it investigates, it will decide what to do with the documents in question and whether to prosecute. That is in its sole discretion. It has full power to conduct its investigation within the bounds of the law.

Parliament has supremacy in our constitutional democracy. It has supremacy above the government. It has supremacy above the Prime Minister. The House of Commons is the representation of the people of Canada and, as such, has powers that are absolute and within the authority as afforded by our Constitution, yet what we see here is an open contempt of authority. The government has demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the powers of Parliament to order the production of documents, which is key to the role of the House to act as a check and balance on the executive branch.

For months the government has flouted the authority of Parliament by refusing to comply with the will of Parliament in this matter. If we allow this to continue, when will this attack on Parliament's authority end? We are at risk of having the chamber of the people of our great nation in the House of Commons devolve into nothing more than an echo chamber, without true power to exercise its role and to do the work of the people in the House.

The very strength of our democratic institutions lies within the power of the House to put a check on the power of the executive branch, to oppose and expose ethical breaches. In other words, the issue goes to the very heart of our democracy and as such is a litmus test of its strength.

The question is, what does the Liberal government have to hide? Why is it so desperate to keep these documents hidden from Canadians? How deep does this corruption go?

We know that the Liberal government has been so embarrassed by the revelations of mismanagement of the green slush fund that it decided to outright abolish it, or at least transfer it to another government agency. However, none of this absolves the SDTC. Nor does it absolve the government from its responsibility to Canadians. It must provide Parliament and the RCMP with answers as to what it knew, when it knew it, how this happened and how deep this corruption goes.

This paralysis of Parliament could be over today if the Liberals displayed the moral courage to comply with the order of the House by turning over the documents for the RCMP to investigate. However, they do not want to and we all know why. These files would certainly reveal the depth of corruption with respect to the green slush fund over the past nine years.

We have seen this movie before. In 2019, when it was revealed that scientists working in Canada's highest security lab were collaborating clandestinely with the People's Republic of China, it took 10 months for those scientists to be fired. When the House first asked for the documents to be released, the Liberals refused. They even took the former Speaker to court in order to cover up their failure.

Are we going to allow the tired government to continue to flout the authority of Parliament as it betrays the trust of Canadians with its endless scandals and reckless management of our economy? Let us not forget that the NDP has been complicit in these scandals by propping up the government with its coalition deal. It is clear that both the Prime Minister and the NDP have been desperately clinging to power. Only the Conservatives are committed to getting to the bottom of these scandals.

My constituents expect me to hold government to account, not prop it up. They expect me to represent their interests and to fight for their concerns. The truth is that our democracy and our shared Canadian dream is at risk. We have seen a sharp decline in the state of our nation over the last nine years. For one, Canadians are poorer than they were nine years ago. Since 2016, the cost of an average home in my constituency of Haldimand—Norfolk has increased by over 150%. Families now need a household income of $208,000 to own a home. Between 2023 and 2024, the average cost of a one-bedroom rental unit increased by 35%, from $892 to $1,190 per month.

Even the health care system has become less reliable and less accessible than it was nine years ago. Streets are less safe, and freedom of speech and freedom of thought are more restricted than they were nine years ago.

The motion before us is about the $400-million siphon to Liberal friends; perhaps the money was even stolen. Canadian tax dollars have been mismanaged at a time when Canadians cannot afford to eat, heat their home or house themselves. Many are living paycheque to paycheque.

It is time for the government to own up to its record and let Canadians decide for themselves. We need to restore transparency and integrity and ensure that taxpayers are once again put first. That is the magnitude of what hangs in the balance in what we are debating today.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of her speech, the member referred to the importance of the work we do in this place and how we serve Canadians. We are the House of Commons after all. At the end of her speech, she referred to the importance of respecting tax dollars and respecting taxpayers to ensure that they have the benefits and services they need to receive. Yesterday one of her colleagues spoke about how part of why the Conservatives were delaying the privilege motion was that they did not want the government to be able to introduce a ways and means motion that would actually help so many Canadians and ensure that each Canadian and corporation pays their fair share.

Is the member aware of any political party or any member of Parliament who opposes the motion on the question of privilege before us? I believe that all members support it, respecting the Speaker's ruling and watching the process unfold so we can get to the work of this important privilege motion and also to the work of the chamber. Can the member explain to the House why she does not want to hear the question be called so we can get to work and respect taxpayers and the public purse?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a very simple issue of having the Liberals comply with the House's order to turn over the documents to the RCMP. That is what we are here to debate today. It is an issue that is very important to Canadians. When there is continuous mismanagement of taxpayers' dollars and when millions and sometimes billions of dollars are siphoned off to agencies, organizations and companies in which Liberal-appointed board members have an interest, Canadians see the erosion of our very important democratic system.

We need to bring back accountability, and the way to bring back accountability is for the Liberals to agree to comply with the House's order and produce the documents.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, is an example of something that started out as a good idea but, when entrusted to the Liberal government, it was ruined. Unfortunately, the Liberals managed to ruin a program that was needed to invest in clean technology and sustainable development companies.

I would like my colleague to tell us where the Conservative Party stands. Does her party agree that the money given to SDTC should stay in the same sector and continue to fund green technology companies, but this time in a responsible manner, contrary to what the government has done?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, the funds that were misappropriated and sent to companies in which board members had an interest is at issue today. We know that environmental protection is something every member of the House agrees on, but the Auditor General found that many of the projects did not even have an environmental component. Many of the projects did not fund what they said they were going to fund. There is a breach of trust that has to be addressed, and the only way it can be addressed is by turning over the documents.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the documents of the testimony about SDTC are available on Open Parliament for the industry committee. I would invite the member to look at them.

One of the things I am interested in, though, especially after listening to the speeches, is that perhaps we should subpoena Stephen Harper, Maxime Bernier and Tony Clement, who actually were part of empowering Annette Verschuren at SDTC during the process. For those who are not aware, Stephen Harper was very much part of Annette Verschuren's rise. Maxime Bernier, who ran as a Conservative leadership candidate at one point and is now part of another party, was industry minister. Tony Clement, whom I have seen in this place with his lobbying and who is still in the universe of the Conservative Party, was part of Annette Verschuren's rise as well.

I would ask the member whether Conservatives would agree to subpoena Stephen Harper, Maxime Bernier and Tony Clement, because their fingerprints are all over this?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important, when dealing with such an important issue and when Canadians are watching, that we do not engage in misinformation and that we present Canadians with the totality of the information.

I want to note that SDTC was an organization that actually functioned quite well until 2017. It did good work, but then the Liberal appointment of board members changed the way the entity functioned. There was a proliferation of corruption, mismanagement and siphoning of money to enrich politicians and Liberal friends. While Canadians are struggling to buy food and heat their homes, and while they can barely pay for their daily living expenses, politicians and politicians' friends are getting rich off taxpayers. That is egregious and something that every member of the House should oppose and stand against.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member just used the word “misinformation” and talked about Liberal friends. The individual she is talking about was a political adviser to Brian Mulroney, Stephen Harper, and Jim Flaherty. Ms. Verschuren is a major contributor to the Conservative Party of Canada. She has contributed thousands of dollars. Yes, we did appoint her. With hindsight, maybe she should not have been appointed, given what has taken place.

Having said that, the games the Conservatives have played over the last three weeks are disgraceful. At the same time, the leader of the official opposition is scared to get a security clearance so he can look at what is happening with foreign interference. Why will the Conservative Party not stop playing this game and get serious about the issues Canadians are having to face? A good starting point would be for the leader of the Conservative Party to get the necessary security clearance so he can see the so-called 11 names.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I feel sorry for the people at home who watch what happens in the House. What we are seeing is the art of deception by misdirection. That is what the Liberals practise. They change the narrative in order to deflect from what is really happening.

What is really happening here is that the Conservatives are seeking to have documents turned over. It is a simple issue, yet there is a desperate attempt by the Liberals to scapegoat everybody, including the RCMP, instead of doing what they are supposed to do, which is to be accountable to the people of Canada who elect them and pay their salary.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague's answer to the question from my colleague from Terrebonne. I was not particularly satisfied with the answer, so I will ask the question another way.

Let us say that, instead of talking about a green fund, we were talking about a fund that invests in oil companies, which generate billions of dollars in profits and receive tax credits. The government gives so much money to oil companies that it does not even have $3 billion to spare to give seniors a bit of a break and a better quality of life.

If the study had been about an oil fund, would the Conservatives have been so keen to find out the truth? If it had been an oil fund, would they have thought it was okay to hide it from their buddies?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have always had an environmental plan, and we do not morph it into a scheme for generating tax revenue. We have always done that. We did it under Stephen Harper and did a very good job of protecting the environment. We will continue to do so.

In order to move forward, we are simply asking for the production of the documents.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in debate in the House of Commons today, I would like to take a few moments to highlight why the Conservative Party of Canada is determined to have the matter in the business of the House of Commons, in the chamber, for all Canadians to see and hear. We do not want another committee established. It is House business, and this is where the matter must be debated. It always seems to be the same thing with the current NDP-Liberal government: Who can get away with what at this time?

Upon researching SDTC, I found it interesting to see its initial purpose. It was a vital initiative launched by the Canadian government to foster the development of clean technologies. Its primary goal was to help innovators address some of the most pressing environmental challenges, while driving economic growth. At its core, SDTC provided funding and other resources to projects that focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving air quality and water quality and promoting sustainable resource use. The support was critical for early-stage projects, particularly those that might struggle to secure private investment due to inherent risks of pioneering new technologies.

One of the most defining features of the SDTC was the broad scope of sectors it covered. From energy to the agriculture and transportation sectors, the organization played a key role in helping innovators across industries. In the energy sector, for instance, it supported clean-energy solutions such as renewable power, energy storage and advancements in energy efficiency. In the agriculture sector, SDTC backed projects that focused on sustainable farming practices, reducing emissions from food production and conserving water resources. In the transportation sector, SDTC helped drive innovations aimed at reducing the carbon footprint on public transportation and at promoting electric mobility.

Beyond just financial support, SDTC fostered a collaborative ecosystem. It connected industry players with academia, researchers and government agencies, and it encouraged partnerships that accelerate the development of these technologies. By bringing together diverse stakeholders, SDTC not only helped ideas become a reality but also ensured that clean technologies reached the market faster and more effectively.

Sustainable Development Technology Canada was essentially turned into a slush fund by Liberal insiders. The Auditor General of Canada uncovered that $400 million in taxpayer funds was misused. Nine board members are linked to 186 conflicts of interest. The situation has escalated due to the refusal of the Liberal government to comply with a parliamentary order demanding the release of documents related to the scandal. This has resulted in a halt to parliamentary business for two weeks.

SDTC was originally established in 2001 to fund green-technology initiatives. Instead it became an open channel for insiders' dealings by the Liberal government. The Prime Minister appointed numerous board members implicated in the scandal. The Auditor General's findings uncovered numerous serious issues of misappropriation of funds and conflicts of interest. Despite the Auditor General's findings, the government has refused to release documentation requested in the House of Commons.

The reluctance of the Liberal government to share the documents raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability. This has created a very clear picture of a deep web of political insiders. The refusal to release the documents is a scathing misuse of public funds. The House must respect the seriousness of the situation. The House and the taxpayers of Canada need to know what is in the documents, and a refusal to release the documents does not respond to the seriousness of the situation.

The concerns we have raised highlighted a deep dissatisfaction within the current NDP-Liberal government, particularly regarding the recent scandal involving Sustainable Development Technology Canada and the alleged misappropriation of the $400 million in taxpayer funds. That is taxpayers' money. Taxpayers are the people who are providing money for Canada, and the government is spending it without any accountability.

The Speaker's ruling indicating that the government violated a House order by refusing to turn over evidence to the police only adds to the perception of a cover-up, especially when the Auditor General's findings revealed 186 conflicts of interest involving Liberal appointees directing funds to their own companies.

The situation is exacerbated by the real economic struggles Canadians are facing. There are rising housing costs, food inflation and increasing crime rates, which many feel the government is failing to adequately address. The argument that the NDP-Liberal coalition has paralyzed Parliament by focusing on damage control instead of solving these pressing issues resonates with those who believe that government corruption is not just a political issue but one that directly affects the ability of Canadians to meet basic needs, such as the need for food, housing and energy.

Government is being called to stop the cover-up and provide the necessary documents for a criminal investigation. This would be a step toward restoring integrity and allowing Parliament to refocus on the real problems the country is facing. For critics, the solution lies in a change of leadership, with the common-sense Conservatives being presented as a party that will end corruption, deliver answers and focus on reducing costs for Canadians.

In terms of the misallocation of funds, $58 million was allocated to 10 projects that did not meet the eligibility criteria; this goes against the fund's intended purpose. These funds were disbursed without contribution agreements, indicating a lack of oversight and due diligence.

The Auditor General found that $334 million was given to projects in which board members had conflicts of interest. Specifically, 186 conflicts of interest were identified among nine board members, including cases where the individuals approved projects that financially benefited them. In other words, they were approving money that was going to their own companies.

In the board transactions audit, the Auditor General reviewed 226 out of 405 transactions approved by the board over a five-year period and found that 82% of them involved conflicts of interest. We can imagine what would be found if they reviewed all 405.

This indicates a systematic ethical lapse within the governance of the fund. One striking example of conflict of interest involves a board member who runs a venture capital firm, Cycle Capital. Her firm reportedly received significant government grants, up to $250 million, while she was on the board. Even while serving on the board, there was $114 million of funding approved for companies she previously invested in, which directly benefited her firm. This apparent self-enrichment highlights the gravity of the governance failure.

In terms of the failure of oversight by government, the Auditor General attributes a large part of this scandal to the Liberal government's industry minister for insufficiently monitoring the contracts and ensuring that proper checks and balances were in place. Despite managing nearly a billion dollars in public funds, the Liberal government seemed lax in its oversight, contributing to the lack of accountability and fiscal responsibility.

The above is clearly a serious lapse in both ethical standards and financial oversight. How can we possibly be confident of the management of taxpayers' dollars when we have a lapse in judgment? If there is no accountability, where is the money going? If it is not our money, and it is taxpayers' money, where is the confidence from the people who elected us to be here? Every person in the House, I am sure, is elected to represent not only their constituents but also people in Canada or abroad who are Canadians. If we do not have any accountability in terms of the money they provide us, then where is confidence within our government? Canadians' tax dollars are missing here.

Political connections and insider connections cannot be seen as a pathway to financial gain. Parliament's role is to hold government to account, and the Liberal government is protecting those involved at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. How can we possibly allow this critical matter to go unresolved? Taxpayer dollars have been wasted. Without exception, Conservatives will hold the Liberals to account.

The hardships described are painting a stark picture of the economic challenges many Canadians are facing today, with food insecurity being one of the most pressing concerns. According to recent reports, food prices have indeed soared, with families expected to pay $700 more for groceries this year compared with 2023.

The increased reliance on food banks, with a 50% spike in visits since 2021, just underscores the scale of the struggle for many Canadians to meet their basic needs, yet here we are today with $400 million that is unaccounted for. The government has been ordered by the Speaker to produce documents as to where the money went, and we are still arguing about that. There are people going to the food bank wondering why we are doing that.

StatsCan reported on food insecurity, showing a jump from 11.6% in 2018 to 15.6% in 2022. This just illustrates a growing financial strain under the current NDP-Liberal government. The surge in food insecurity, exacerbated by inflation and policies such as carbon tax, is leading to further economic stress. Food Banks Canada’s 2024 poverty report card indicates that nearly half of Canadians feel worse off financially compared with last year, with one in four experiencing food insecurity.

Critics of the government point to its inflationary policies, such as increased spending and the carbon tax, as contributing factors. The carbon tax in particular has been criticized for raising costs throughout the supply chain, going from farmers, ranchers and truckers to consumers. This has made food and other essentials more expensive for families. This burden is compounded by inflation. It is seen by many as a direct result of the government's approach. Economists have highlighted the significant cost burden the carbon tax imposes on the food industry, further validating concerns that these policies are driving up costs for ordinary Canadians. The Conservative position focuses on reversing these policies, specifically by axing the carbon tax, fixing the budget and implementing measures to bring down costs for consumers.

In a letter tabled in Parliament on October 21, the House of Commons law clerk told MPs that he recently received new documents from three government departments relating to Sustainable Development Technology Canada. In all three cases, information was withheld. Testifying to MPs at the public accounts committee on Monday, the law clerk said that three departments are still failing to comply with an order by the House of Commons. According to one article, the law clerk “wrote to [the Speaker] about Finance Canada, Innovation, Science and Economic Development and the Treasury Board Secretariat” that “[a]ll three government institutions provided documents containing redactions and/or withheld some pages purportedly relying on the Access to Information Act”. He also testified that “only eight government organizations had forked over all their unredacted records on SDTC. The vast majority of others (22) had either withheld documents or redacted them.”

He went on to say, “We're talking about documents, sometimes hundreds of pages, that have been withheld, and redactions that are not only about personal information, but also solicitor-client privilege or other motives under the Access to Information Act”.

The scrutiny and accusations surrounding SDTC, particularly when it comes to allegations of conflicts of interest, are significant. The claims that Liberal appointees funnelled $400 million to start-ups with ties to senior SDTC management and that 82% of the reviewed projects had conflicts of interest raise serious concerns about governance and transparency. Conservatives' concerns about the mismanagement of $400 million in taxpayer money through Sustainable Development Technology Canada resonate with many Canadians, especially in light of their current economic struggles. With inflation rising, rising costs and many people living from paycheque to paycheque, the perception that public funds are being misused or awarded to connected insiders can be deeply frustrating for citizens.

Many Canadians see the government's handling of the Sustainable Development Technology Canada issue as emblematic of larger problems. The refusal to turn over documents related to the green slush fund has fuelled accusations of a government trying to hide potential corruption and conflicts of interest.

The lack of transparency shows contempt for Parliament and, by extension, for the public, the taxpayers supporting the government. The claim that Parliament has been paralyzed because of the government's refusal to co-operate adds to the urgency. At a time when Canadians are facing crises in housing, food security and public safety, the perception that government is prioritizing a cover-up over helping citizens exacerbates frustration. With the cost of living skyrocketing, crime rising and affordable housing in short supply, many Canadians are looking for leadership that is focused on addressing these immediate concerns.

The demand for the government to finally turn over the documents is about more than just the scandal: It is about restoring trust and allowing Parliament to get back to addressing the critical challenges that everyday Canadians are facing. The lack of action is seen as preventing the government from making meaningful progress on issues that directly affect the quality of life for millions. It is deeply concerning when public trust in government institutions is undermined by allegations of mismanagement and self-dealing, as appears to be the case with the green slush fund. The fact that we are discussing this issue speaks to a broader problem with accountability and transparency, things that should be fundamental in any democratic government.

The Auditor General's findings that the Liberal government allegedly turned SDTC into a slush fund for insiders and that nearly $400 million in contracts were inappropriately awarded only fuel the frustration felt by many Canadians. When a government initiative designed to foster sustainability and clean technology becomes embroiled in allegations of corruption, it raises serious questions about the governance and integrity of those responsible for overseeing public funds. The troubling part is that such a situation should not require the lengthy debates of a prolonged effort to bring the truth to light. Ensuring that public funds are managed transparently and ethically is a basic expectation, and the need to debate such a clear-cut issue reflects how far things have gone astray.

Citizens rely on the government to act in the public's interest, particularly when it comes to something as critical as environmental and economic sustainability. For the government to restore any sense of trust, not only does it need to release the documents that detail these conflicts of interest, but it also needs to take decisive actions to rectify the situation and prevent it from happening again.

Earlier this year, through her report on the SDTC, the Auditor General revealed the shocking truth of the extent of Liberal corruption. This showed that the Liberal government had turned the organization into a slush fund. for organizations connected to Liberal insiders. In total, contracts worth $123 million were found to have been given inappropriately, and $76 million was given to projects where there was a connection with Liberal friends appointed to the roles within SDTC.

At this point, keeping the current government accountable seems to be an unattainable task or a bad joke. We have Canadians living in their cars because of unaffordability, food bank attendance at record highs and kids living at home because they cannot buy a house. Nevertheless, the Liberal government is playing games with how much money it can distribute without getting caught. Continued delays will only further erode public confidence. Pressing issues such as affordability, crime and housing need to be addressed. In the end, all we are asking for is transparency and accountability. The government should present the requested documents to this chamber immediately and answer to the taxpayers of Canada. With $400 million spent and 186 ethical violations, it is time to present the documents.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting watching Conservative after Conservative stand up when they know full well that all this information has been provided. It is nothing more than a game that the Conservative Party is playing.

The RCMP has very clearly indicated that it is uncomfortable with the game. What is being asked is to hand information over to the RCMP directly. We are listening to what the RCMP, the Auditor General of Canada and many other stakeholders are saying. That is what the Government of Canada is actually doing; the Conservatives want to play a game.

I will highlight another game regarding the Conservative leader: “[A]ccording to one national security expert”, he is “‘playing with Canadians’ by refusing to get a top-level security clearance and receive classified briefings on foreign interference”. This is a security expert who advised both Liberal and Conservative governments.

The games, whether inside or outside the chamber, continue with the Conservatives; they are putting the Conservative Party ahead of the interests of Canadians.

Whether it is this game or, more importantly, the game related to interference, very simply, why will the leader of the Conservative Party not go ahead and get a security clearance so that he can actually be informed on the foreign interference file? Why is he playing a game?

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about the $400 million, the 186 ethical violations and SDTC.

Let us start with SDTC. Its funding allocation was created to provide funding support to innovative projects that have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and drive sustainability forward. However, being lax in how funding is distributed means we will not meet any of the goals we want to meet, and here we are today.

SDTC, in 2001, was there for a reason. It was doing what it needed to do to support new companies that were trying to do innovative things, whether through oil and gas or through renewable energies. Now all we are asking for are the documents so we can see where the $400 million went and who is responsible for the 186 ethical violations. Then we can move forward and get SDTC back on track.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague when he talked about food banks and the work of Parliament, work that he and his colleagues are obstructing. We have serious issues, and this issue is meant to be referred to committee.

However, I am very concerned by the recent revelations we are learning from CSIS and other investigations into foreign interference in his party, with key people who supported as leader the man who is now in Stornoway, and by the unwillingness of the Conservatives to name names. It is a fundamental principle that we put our nation above our party. We should certainly put our nation above the partisan interests of the member in Stornoway.

I would like to ask the member about the allegations coming forward now. The Brown campaign, which was taken out by the guy who lives in Stornoway, said, “we knew that local pro-Modi organizations alongside Indian government actors were mobilizing against the Brown campaign as they were concerned with the strong support we had from both the Sikh and Muslim communities.” We know that in the 48 hours before the member for Stornoway won, 70,000 online memberships were sold, which raises questions about how that happened so quickly. A 2024 study published in the International Journal suggests that “foreign actors could influence the selection process of party leadership...simply by purchasing party memberships that distribute ballots in leadership elections without identity verification.”

Is this the reason the man who lives in Stornoway is unable or unwilling to get security clearance? Is it because of the help he got from the Modi government to take control of his party?

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the NDP-Liberal government is ignoring the $400 million that has gone somewhere and the 186 ethical violations. However, we can back up and go to the WE foundation. We can go back to ArriveCAN. Where is the money going? The Liberals are not worried about that.

They should provide the documents so we can move forward. We do not need to be standing here discussing what is important. What is important for the people I talk to? They want to know what is happening with taxpayer dollars. If taxpayer dollars are not accounted for, where are they going? They are concerned about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is happening right now is an absolutely fruitless debate. The two sides of the House are talking about completely different things. One side is talking about documents not being submitted. The other side is talking about security clearances. I do want to point out that both things are important, but we need to get to the substance of the matter, and that is not what we are doing right now.

I think that the Conservative Party should hurry up and push its leader to get his security clearance. I also think the government should hand over the documents.

Does my colleague think it is time to move on to something else? The House has been paralyzed for a very long time.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to move on today. If the Liberals produce the documents today, we can move on to government business. I am looking forward to that, and I agree that it is time to move on. It is troublesome that $400 million is lost and there are 186 ethical violations, and nobody will produce the documents.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague explained a little about this, but he understands documents and the importance of understanding where money goes and how critical following the money is. Innovation is important, as he pointed out, as is looking for successful innovations.

Following the documents and money is a critical piece to this issue. Would my colleague like to comment on that?

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, SDTC had such a great purpose in promoting innovation in Canada. We have a lot of smart people in Canada who can help us in developing greener solutions in all sorts of industries.

If we do not follow the money and cannot find out where the money went, there is no accountability, which is the problem. There is no accountability today, and without accountability, we do not know where the money went. How do we address future individuals who are looking for funding from SDTC? It is shut down until we can figure out how we are going to get accountability.

If the documents are produced, we will follow up from there and the RCMP can follow up. Then we can move forward to government business.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question of privilege being debated in the chamber at this time is meant to be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee so that a process can be determined for how best to obtain documents and whatever else needs to happen.

This is my fourth, fifth or maybe even sixth time asking this on behalf of the constituents of the riding of Waterloo, but is there any member or political party in this chamber who opposes this question of privilege? Do all members and all parties agree that it needs to follow the process I noted so that we can get to the bottom of this issue? Why are we not calling the question to ensure the next steps can take place so we can get to the bottom of this matter?

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Chair directed the government to produce the documents, unredacted, in this House. That is what we are waiting for.