Debates of Oct. 24th, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, might I suggest that, through my lens, the Prime Minister is a feckless man who has lost the moral authority to govern? I truly feel we are on a path of abject failure with the Liberals continuing to flagrantly dismiss the people of Canada and the procedures of the House.

To answer the member's question directly, the moment the Conservative leader chooses to take the briefing, he can no longer speak openly about this. I would encourage the Prime Minister to provide the Leader of the Opposition with the same briefing he provided The Washington Post.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech on what has become absurdity in the House, as the Liberals and the Prime Minister feel they do not owe taxpayers any explanation. Meanwhile, if they owed the CRA money, they would be dragged by handcuffs out of their homes and put in jail, but they are allowed to do whatever they feel.

The story the member told about how the Prime Minister rose and has changed his feelings on parliamentary procedures is very interesting. There is a quote, and I cannot remember who said it, but it is something like this: “Power and money do not change who you are; they reveal who you are.”

I am curious to hear my colleague's point of view on what she has witnessed in her familial experience in politics in regard to what the Prime Minister was and what he has become.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the most important values Canadians look for in someone who is serving them in the House of the common people, the House of Commons here in Ottawa, are trust, leadership and respect.

Continually, when I speak with constituents, the common questions I hear are, first of all, “When is the next election?” but more importantly, “What is going on in Ottawa?”

The basic principle of the Conservative Party is that people need to take responsibility for their actions. Maybe, just maybe, after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, the current Prime Minister should start owning his errors, step back and consider the impact he is having on all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, there is something I do not understand. All the opposition parties agree that we need the documents, but there is one question we always ask Conservative members, and they never answer it: Why do we not vote on it? I get the impression that the Conservative Party is working very hard to get a prorogation.

Here is my question for my colleague: What does she think about the rumours of prorogation we are hearing these days and the consequences this could have for our democracy?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can confidently say the current Prime Minister has lost control. He is losing confidence, and he has clearly lost the plot. He is not listening to advice from his colleagues about resigning. Why would he not just call a carbon tax election?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, to respond to what the member said, the Liberal leader does not need to get the security clearance, even though the NDP leader, the Bloc leader and the Green Party leader already have it.

This was in iPolitics, and it is really something: The leader of the Conservative Party's "approach to national security is ‘complete nonsense,’ says expert”.

Wesley Wark, who has advised both Liberal and Conservative governments on national security issues, said the Tory leader is knowingly misleading the public by claiming he doesn’t need the clearance because his chief of staff has received briefings—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, this is not relevant to the subamendment and amendment to the motion that we are debating, which is the privilege motion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There is a lot of latitude, and as the hon. member knows, members on both sides have weighed in on different topics within this debate.

I will let the hon. member finish.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am not too sure where I was when I was interrupted. This is only about the tenth time I've made reference to it.

Anyway, I would suggest to the member opposite that she really think about her answer. When other leaders of political parties and experts are saying that her leader's arguments are absolutely nonsense, it is a reflection on the member's arguments. It makes no sense unless, of course, the leader of the Conservative Party has something to hide, something he is not telling Canadians, something that would not allow him to get the security clearance. I believe that is the case.

Why will the leader not do what other leaders have done and get the security clearance? Does he not think the issue is serious enough?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find this quite rich coming from the member across the aisle.

Nonetheless, as a collective, let us step back in time to when the Liberals promised Canadians an open, transparent government, “open by default”. Continually, however, we have scandal after scandal. I could list a few: SNC-Lavalin, ArriveCAN, WE Charity, McKinsey, blackface and the list goes on.

They must end the cover-up and release the documents.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

If it helps the member, I would ask for unanimous consent to table a document, a list of—

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a simple ask: end the cover-up and release the documents.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, that was an excellent speech quoting former MP Derek Lee about the purpose and the powers of the House to command documents. In this case, we have a situation where 82% of the money that went out the door, according to the Auditor General, was conflicted, and that was just in a sample. Nineteen government departments have redacted documents, that is, censored them; nine government departments have put them in. It seems the only government departments that redacted them are the ones that actually have the names connected with what was going on, like the industry department and the Privy Council Office.

Can the member please share with the House her thoughts on why nine government departments have complied and why some of the others that are more directly involved have not?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it would be safe to say that the member of Parliament who posed the question would find interest in the speech. He and I have a lot of political history together, over the years, and I think it is easy for us to acknowledge that the cover-up of the $400-million slush fund scandal is clearly paralyzing Parliament.

The Prime Minister of the day has certainly lost control. The House is at a complete standstill. The government still needs to produce the documents. Every single day, in every single way, I will continue to ask if we will receive the documents. Yes or no?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today in this very interesting discussion we are having. For those just joining us or those watching on social media, I will give a bit of background before I really get into things.

On June 10, the House of Commons adopted a motion demanding the production of various documents related to Sustainable Development Technology Canada. I will refer to it as SDTC. All those documents were for review by the RCMP. However, in response, several departments of the federal government either outright refused to comply with the House order or redacted the documents provided. Some excuses cited the Access to Information Act.

Notably, the House order did not allow for any redactions. It was a straightforward motion on the production of documents. Parliament does have the power to do that, and we have that power because Parliament holds the government, the executive branch, to account. That is a very important part of our parliamentary democracy. For additional context, the House's absolute and unfettered power to order documents is in our Constitution and has been a major part of Parliament's history.

Considering the failure to produce the documents, the Conservative House leader raised a question of privilege asserting that a breach of House privilege had occurred, a point confirmed by the Speaker's ruling that the privileges of the House had been violated.

The green slush fund scandal began late in 2018 when the former Liberal industry minister, Navdeep Bains, raised concerns about Jim Balsillie, the Harper-era chair of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, due to his public criticism of the government's privacy legislation. The minister's office requested that Jim Balsillie cease his criticisms, prompting the Liberal minister to propose two alternative chairs to the CEO of SDTC, one of whom was an entrepreneur receiving funding through SDTC. That is very important to remember.

Despite the warnings about the risks of appointing a conflicted chair, given that SDTC had never had a chair with vested interests in funded companies, the minister knew better and proceeded with the appointment in the summer of 2019 anyway. This decision then led to an environment where conflicts of interest were tolerated, as board members awarded funding to companies in which they held stakes. Despite witnessing 186 conflicts at the board level, officials at ISED, Innovation, Science and Economic Development, took no action. They witnessed potential wrongdoing and did nothing about it.

In January 2021, the current Minister of Industry succeeded Minister Bains, but he did nothing to correct the obvious conflict of interest taking place right under his nose. A year later, whistle-blowers reported unethical practices at SDTC to the Auditor General, and following these revelations, the Privy Council was briefed and two independent reports were commissioned. Another year passed, and in September 2023, the whistle-blowers made their allegations public, prompting the Liberal minister to finally take action and suspend SDTC funding. Two months later, the Auditor General announced an audit of SDTC, which culminated in a damning report, released in June 2024, revealing a complete breakdown of governance and accountability by the minister.

Unfortunately, nothing seems to shock Canadians anymore about the Liberal government. My constituents are quite frustrated, but mostly they have come to unfortunately expect this level of corruption and incompetence. I really cannot blame Canadians, though. We have to look at the Liberals' substantial and abysmal record on these scandals. Perhaps a brief overview of some of the many scandals would help to put this latest one into perspective.

The SNC-Lavalin scandal unfolded in 2019 when it was revealed that senior officials in the Prime Minister's Office had pressured then attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to intervene in a criminal case against SNC-Lavalin, a major engineering firm facing bribery and fraud charges related to contracts in Libya. She resisted those pressures, leading to her demotion and eventual resignation, as well as the resignation of several other officials, including another cabinet minister. The controversy ignited a national debate over political interference in the judicial process, raising questions about the integrity of the government decision-making and the rule of law. An ethics investigation later concluded that the Prime Minister had violated the Conflict of Interest Act, further intensifying public scrutiny and leading to significant political fallout for the Liberal Party. The scandal underscored the challenges of balancing economic interests with ethical governance in Canada.

The WE scandal emerged in 2020 when it was revealed that the Liberal government awarded a multi-million dollar contract to the WE Charity to administer a student grant program, despite the organization's close ties to the Prime Minister and his then finance minister Bill Morneau. Does that sound familiar? As in the current scandal, critics raised concerns about conflicts of interest, as both the Prime Minister and then finance minister Morneau had personal connections to the charity.

Public outcry intensified when it was disclosed that the charity was planning to pay large sums to the Prime Minister's family for speaking engagements, leading to allegations of favouritism, a lack of transparency and much more. The scandal prompted multiple parliamentary investigations and led to the resignation of the finance minister, while the Prime Minister faced significant scrutiny over his government's decision-making process. Ultimately, the controversy highlighted issues of accountability and ethics within the federal government, leading to calls for greater oversight of public contracts and lobbying activities.

The ArriveCAN scandal emerged in 2022 when it was revealed that the government had spent over $54 million on a mobile app designed to facilitate border crossings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Critics argued that the app was overly complicated and ineffective and imposed unnecessary burdens on travellers, leading to significant frustration. Allegations surfaced regarding the government's failure to adequately test the app and the lack of clarity on its effectiveness in managing public health.

The controversy further intensified when it was disclosed that the app collected personal, sensitive data, raising privacy concerns among Canadians. This situation sparked widespread criticism from opposition parties and led to calls for accountability and transparency regarding the government's pandemic response strategies. The scandal highlighted issues of mismanagement and raised questions about the efficiency of government initiatives during a crisis.

More recently, and still unfolding, we have two more scandals worth mentioning. First is the indigenous procurement scandal, which has revealed that the government made significant missteps in its efforts to boost indigenous participation in federal procurement. Critics highlighted instances where contracts meant to benefit indigenous businesses were awarded to non-indigenous firms, undermining the intent of initiatives aimed at fostering economic development for indigenous communities.

There were allegations of mismanagement and a lack of oversight. Indeed, one need only upload a picture of a cute mammal to qualify. This sums the whole debate up. It is about trust. It undermines the trust of indigenous people, who are trying to take the government at its word. The documents issue we have here is about the trust in Parliament and government that Canadians must have. Of course, as expected, the ongoing scandal has prompted calls for reform in procurement to ensure that contracts genuinely serve indigenous interests and has raised broader questions about the government's commitment to reconciliation and equitable economic opportunities for indigenous people. As a result, there were increased demands for transparency and adherence to commitments made to indigenous communities in federal policies.

Then there is the ongoing foreign interference scandal, highlighting that foreign entities, particularly from China, had attempted to influence Canadian elections and politics. Reports indicated that foreign agents engaged in tactics such as the intimidation and harassment of Canadian citizens and attempted to manipulate electoral outcomes by funnelling money to candidates. The scandal escalated when security agencies, including CSIS, revealed that it had warned certain members of Parliament about threats to their safety stemming from foreign interference.

This revelation has led to widespread public concern and outrage over the integrity of Canadian democracy. The Liberal government continues to face criticism for its inaction and lack of transparency regarding these threats, prompting calls from the Conservatives to release the names of the compromised parliamentarians in the CSIS report and for stronger measures to protect national sovereignty and enhance accountability.

This Liberal scandal has highlighted the failures of the Liberal government and the urgent need for reforms to safeguard against foreign interference. The lack of transparency, ethics, accountability and safeguarding of the interests of Canadians is a pattern that is consistent throughout all Liberal scandals.

Let us now turn to yet another one, the one we are talking about today. Sustainable Development Technology Canada, for those wondering, was a federally funded non-profit organization established in 2021 to support the development of clean technologies aimed at addressing climate change and promoting sustainable development. With a mandate to disburse over $100 million, SDTC administered the SD tech fund to finance innovative projects related to air quality, clean water and soil health.

However, significant governance issues emerged, particularly following the appointment of conflicted executives by former Liberal industry minister Navdeep Bains in 2019. Under the new chair appointed by the minister, the board began approving funding for projects where executives had direct conflicts of interest, resulting in over $390 million being awarded improperly. Whistle-blowers raised concerns about financial mismanagement, prompting investigations by the Auditor General and the Ethics Commissioner that revealed severe lapses in governance and compliance standards at SDTC.

Here is just some of the damning testimony from the SDTC whistle-blowers:

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.

Here is another quote:

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.

This is exactly what Parliament is asking for.

Here is another quote:

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.

Here is another one:

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

The green slush fund scandal is yet another chapter in a troubling narrative of mismanagement, conflicts of interest and a lack of accountability under the Prime Minister and the current Liberal government.

Time and time again, we have seen the patterns of behaviour that prioritize political protection over the principles of transparency and good governance. The testimonials from whistle-blowers underscore the urgency of a thorough investigation and the need for reforms to restore public trust. Canadians deserve a government that prioritizes their interests, safeguards public funds and upholds the integrity of our democratic institutions. As we move forward, let us demand accountability from those who have failed in their duties, ensuring that scandals become a relic of the past rather than a reoccurring theme of our nation.

I hope I have laid out an argument that not only describes the current situation but actually continues this call for the production of documents, unredacted, so that the RCMP can have a look at them and determine if there is any potential wrongdoing through an investigation.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, perhaps the member could help me to understand. This would be unprecedented, the House ordering documents to give to a third party. Who might the House want to give the documents to next? This is a problem. This precedent-setting part of the motion is a problem. The RCMP has said it does not want the documents because if the documents land in the RCMP's lap they could compromise the investigation.

Why would the Conservative Party want to compromise an investigation that is in the best interests of Canadians?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, our job as legislators, elected by our constituents, is to question the government, to keep an eye on the government, the executive branch, and what it does. Parliament, therefore, does have the power to demand certain documents. That is what the democratically elected representatives here voted for. The government continues to obstruct that.

As I mentioned, democracy is based on trust. The government has repeatedly demonstrated that the people should not trust its work. I laid out scandal after scandal, issue after issue, in my 20-minute speech. That is why Parliament demanded these documents, so that they can be turned over to the RCMP for potential investigation.

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

Madam Speaker, in the last part of his speech, my colleague talked about the importance of restoring public trust. I cannot believe he said that. I want to know if he really thinks that what we have been doing these past three weeks here in the House is going to restore public trust. We are stuck on this one issue when there are a number of crises going on right now.

We learned today, for example, that global greenhouse gas emissions have risen to a level that is dangerous for humanity. No one is talking about that. We are in the midst of a housing crisis. No one is talking about that. There is a language crisis, and French is disappearing in Canada. No one is talking about that.

I really wonder if the member truly thinks, deep down in his soul, that what we have been doing here these past three weeks is going to restore public trust.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I honestly believe that the Liberals have destroyed the trust after nine years in power. How many scandals have we gone through? How many conflicts of interest? How many investigations by the Ethics Commissioner?

I think Canadians deserve good government. They are not getting it from that side of the House. Let us call a carbon tax election and find out what Canadians have to say.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am different from the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, although we are the ones who are usually making a quip to the Speaker.

I wanted to ask the member about a common argument being made by Liberal members of Parliament that it is unwise to hand over the documents to the law clerk. Multiple departments continue to refuse to do so, or are redacting the documents they give to the law clerk. The law clerk would then give them to the RCMP and the RCMP could do with them whatever it wants. That argument should have been made in June when the majority of the members of Parliament in this House voted to get those documents handed over handed over to the law clerk. What the Liberal MPs are trying to do is to rehash the same argument we have already had in the chamber. A majority of this chamber, which was made up of all of the opposition parties, voted against Liberal MPs to get the release of these much-needed documents, which would show off the corruption in the Liberal government.

I would like the member to perhaps think back to the original question that was put before the House, the vote that we held, and the decision that was made then to get the full release of these documents, so that the public would know how deep the corruption actually runs.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, actually, my friend brings up a very good point. It also highlights exactly how the Liberals tend to deal with pretty much everything. It is basically to deny. They say something is not happening, then they say that maybe it is happening a little, but we should not look that way. Then it is happening, but they are not going to deal with it or will try to memory-hole it somehow. With the Liberal government, this happens every single time. After scandal upon scandal, after hundreds of millions of dollars of mismanagement, Canadians are hurting. Food bank usage is at record levels. We have a housing crisis, which is something caused by the Liberal government. Canadians deserve better.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would ask this of my hon. colleague and his hon. colleague sitting behind him to his broadcast left: Why do they not trust the RCMP? If it saw evidence that crimes had been committed, it has more than enough power, authority and opportunity to go after the material it needs to perform an investigation. The RCMP does not need the House of Commons to do its work.

Why do you not trust them?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member has been in the House long enough to know he is to address questions and comments through the Chair, not directly to the members.

The hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock has the floor.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do trust the RCMP. I outlined in my speech that I trust the Auditor General and the RCMP; I trust those institutions. What I do not trust is the Liberal government. The RCMP cannot ask for documents if it does not know they exist. That is why we, as parliamentarians, have voted to produce the documents, unredacted, so that the RCMP can see everything that is available. This can potentially lead to some answers about what happened to some of this money.