Debates of Oct. 24th, 2024

Procedure and House Affairs

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

Business of the House

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for several days now, the government has been stubbornly refusing to disclose the documents that were requested in the House. As a result, our work is paralyzed. Unfortunately, the government's legislative agenda is short on substance.

We all know there is an easy way to do this. There is one way to get back to the normal business of the House immediately, and that is for the government to table the documents that were requested by the House, by a majority of parliamentarians.

My question for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is this: Will we get access to the documents and a legislative agenda, yes or no?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague is well aware, we are complying with the ruling of the Speaker of the House, which indicated that this matter must be referred to committee. As the Speaker said, the Conservatives are obstructing their own obstruction. I cannot help but think that that is because they do not want to know the truth. Doing what they are asking would be an abuse of the House's power. We will always stand up for Canadians' rights and freedoms.

I also want to illustrate the fact that his question is totally fake, much like the tacky slogans Conservatives hide behind because they have no actual ideas or policies for the country. That is probably why they continue to filibuster their own motion: to distract Canadians from the fact that they are nothing more than an empty shell. It must be pretty embarrassing for Conservative MPs, having to filibuster their own motion day after day to protect their leader from any real accountability. It must also be kind of embarrassing for Conservative MPs to sit in a caucus with a leader who refuses to get a security clearance, because he clearly has something to hide. It is expected of a leader of a political party to do this, but beyond his little performances in the House, their leader does very little that comes close to leadership.

Despite the games being played by the Conservatives, on this side of the House, we are going to continue to work hard for Canadians. When the House does get back to debating legislation, the priorities will be Bill C-71 on citizenship, Bill C-66 on military justice, Bill C-63 on online harms and the ways and means motion related to capital gains.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, after hearing the comments of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, I can say that there are two very simple things that can be done so that we can move forward quickly. First, the government needs to produce the documents. Second, the Prime Minister needs to release the names.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak on behalf of the residents of the beautiful riding of Simcoe—Grey.

As members know, last week was a riding week, and there were couple of celebrations that I was fortunate to attend. The first was the 40th anniversary of Jan Trude's first Tim Hortons. Jan owns all the Tim Hortons's in the Collingwood catchment area. It was a great anniversary. Forty years is pretty incredible, as is what Jan does for the local community, whether it is the hospice, the hospital or the Georgian Triangle. She also donates money every year for golf tournaments and is always there with products when people need them.

The other celebration I would like to highlight quickly was for Honorary Colonel Rory MacKinnon. I am fortunate to have Canadian Forces Base Borden in my riding, and he is now the honorary colonel for 16 Wing. I went to the change of appointment ceremony and I congratulate Rory. He will do a great job and will represent the people in our armed forces very well.

If I asked someone back in my riding of Simcoe—Grey if they had heard about the Liberal scandal in which the Liberals gave hundreds of millions of dollars to friends and insiders, the one with all sorts of conflicts of interest, the one in which Liberal cronies figured the rules did not apply to them, the one that produced perks and profits for Liberals and their friends while many Canadians struggle just to put food on the table, do members think that person might be able to guess which one it was? I suspect they would ask which of the many Liberal scandals I was talking about That is because for nine years, we have seen this behaviour time and time again. Canadians are finding it harder to get by, but for Liberals and their insider friends, the times have never been so good. Through scandals, mismanagement and insider deals, Liberal friends have enjoyed an endless buffet of Canadian tax dollars.

Maybe my constituent would have guessed I was talking about WE Charity. We all remember WE Charity. Sometimes it feels like forever ago when it comes to Liberal scandals. However, WE Charity almost got $1 billion from the Liberals, untendered, to administer the short-lived Canada student service grant program. The Prime Minister himself stated that WE was the only possible option to administer such a program, despite the number of public service executives growing by 42% since the Liberals took power and 50,000 new bureaucrats being hired just from 2015 to 2020. Now it is more than 100,000 new hires since the Liberals took office.

Despite 50,000 new people on the public payroll, somehow only an organization that had spent almost half a million dollars to hire the Prime Minister's own mother and brother, not to mention prominently featuring the Prime Minister at events targeting youth, could handle this billion-dollar program with almost no strings attached. One can spend half a million dollars and get a billion-dollar return. Only friends of the Liberal Party would get that type of return on investment.

“What about SNC-Lavalin?” my constituent might ask. It is another classic case of Liberal corruption for our feminist Prime Minister.

Members will recall that SNC-Lavalin spent $1.9 million to host Muammar Gaddafi's son on a visit to Canada in 2008. The RCMP were watching, and it turns out that was just small potatoes. By February 2015, the RCMP pressed charges alleging that between 2001 and 2011, SNC-Lavalin had paid $48 million in bribes to government officials in Libya. The charges also alleged that the company defrauded Libyan organizations of $130 million. However, luck, once again, was on SNC-Lavalin's side, because shortly after all of these charges were pressed, the Liberals came to power.

After 51 meetings with senior officials and $110,000 in donations to the Liberal Party later, the Prime Minister agreed to change the Criminal Code to allow SNC-Lavalin to get away with fraud and bribery charges. Here we go again: only $100,000 in donations to make almost $200 million in corruption disappear. That is a great return on investment for friends of the Liberal Party.

It was not the WE Charity scandal and it was not the SNC-Lavalin scandal. What about the Aga Khan? That was one of our first reminders that the rules the rest of us follow do not apply to the Prime Minister.

On December 26, 2016, while most of us were dealing with food hangovers from Christmas dinner the night before, the Prime Minister and his family hopped on his jet and headed down to Nassau, Bahamas. Then they got a lift from there in the Aga Khan's private helicopter over to his private island so they could have a bit of rest and relaxation. Conveniently enough, a few Liberal friends were also visiting. The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount and her husband, who is a childhood friend of the Prime Minister, were there, as were the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, a groomsman at the Prime Minister's wedding, and his husband.

What did this quaint New Year's getaway for a few old Liberals cost? It cost $271,000, almost five years of salary for the average Canadian. That is not to mention the $50 million of federal funding given to the Aga Khan Foundation, a registered lobby group, in just the previous year.

We would think that for that kind of donation, the vacation would have been for free, but I guess for the Prime Minister and the few Liberal friends who attended, it was. Imagine spending 50 million tax dollars for the invite and another 271,000 tax dollars for a vacation that regular Canadians can barely ever dream of. It is another great return on investment for the Liberals who were lucky enough to get the invite.

Incredibly, though, the present scandal we are talking about is not WE Charity, SNC-Lavalin or the Aga Khan's private island getaway. My constituents may guess it must be the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation scandal. That one almost slipped my mind. There seem to be so many that it is hard to keep track. Let us recall it.

In 2015, if a billionaire and adviser to the government of the Prime Minister's favourite basic dictatorship were asked to get in the good books of the Liberal Party, what would they do? They know the Prime Minister's father had an admiration for Communist dictators like Fidel Castro and Mao, and they know there is a foundation named after the former prime minister that is actively seeking donations, since the previous Liberal government gave it a generous $125-million endowment. They also know that the foundation is stacked with Liberal cronies and regularly meets in the Prime Minister's Office. Conveniently enough, they know that the Chinese Business Chamber of Canada is hosting a posh fundraiser in Toronto, where they might be able to get some face time with the Prime Minister and his brother. What would they do? They would hop on a jet from Beijing to Toronto and commit to dropping $1 million in exchange for future considerations. That means $200,000 for the foundation, $750,000 to Pierre Trudeau's favourite alma mater and $50,000 on a statue of the elder Trudeau himself.

CSIS says that China interfered in the 2019 and 2021 elections, both taking place after the donation was made. It could be a coincidence, but what if it was not? Taking $1 million in donations to help sway two elections in one's favour seems like a good return on investment that I think even the Liberals would be truly impressed with.

Amazingly, though, this is not even the scandal we are here to talk about today. Nor is it about former Liberal MP Frank Baylis, whose consortium got $237 million to build ventilators that may or may not have been delivered. Nor is it about GC Strategies, which the Auditor General has announced she is investigating for more than $100 million in often sole-source contracts it received from the Liberal government. Members may remember that for the arrive scam app alone, GC Strategies pocketed $20 million, and that was for no work. That was for an app that was supposed to cost only $80,000. It is certainly nice work for those who can get it.

Today, I am here to talk about what may be the dooziest of all Liberal scandals, which is saying something. I am here to talk about Sustainable Development Technology Canada. Maybe members know it better by its unofficial name, the Liberal billion-dollar green slush fund. They may have heard something about the green slush fund recently, but in case they have not, let me provide a bit of background.

Sustainable Development Technology Canada is a federally funded not-for-profit that approved and disbursed over $100 million in funds annually to clean technology companies. It was established in 2001 by the Government of Canada through the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology Act. It supported projects that develop and demonstrate new technologies that address issues related to climate change, air quality, clean water and clean soil. It was an arm's-length organization from the government.

By all accounts, SDTC was doing good work for its first few years under its Stephen Harper-appointed chair, the Canadian technology leader Jim Balsillie. However, in 2018, former Liberal industry minister Navdeep Bains had concerns regarding Mr. Balsillie's public criticism of the Liberals' privacy legislation. Those concerns continue to be shared by many Canadians and many in the House.

Now we know that the Liberals do not tolerate dissenting options, so Bains manoeuvred to put Annette Verschuren in as CEO, even though she was already receiving SDTC funding through one of her companies and in an immediate conflict of interest. In fact, the minister, the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council were warned of what risks would be associated with appointing somebody who was already in a conflict. They were told that the fund had never had a chair with interest in companies receiving funding from SDTC. Bains appointed her anyway. He also appointed two other very controversial board members who went on to engage in unethical behaviour in breach of the Conflict of Interest Act by approving funding to companies in which they held ownership stakes.

It is said that the new chair and board members began to oversee an environment where conflicts of interest were tolerated and managed, not avoided, as they be. Board members regularly awarded SDTC funding to companies in which they themselves either held stocks or positions. It really was corruption on a staggering level.

By January 2021, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry was appointed after Navdeep Bains declined to run for re-election. In November 2022, whistle-blowers raised internal concerns with the Auditor General about unethical practices at SDTC. The Privy Council was briefed by these whistle-blowers about the allegations shortly thereafter and commissioned two independent reports. In September 2023, the whistle-blowers took the allegations public and the industry minister finally agreed to suspend SDTC funding.

This was followed shortly thereafter in November 2023 by an audit of SDTC by the Auditor General. Fast-forward to June 2024, and the Auditor General's report was released. It claimed severe governance failures at SDTC. Just what did the Auditor General's report find? Are members ready for this? It found that SDTC gave $58 million to 10 ineligible projects that did not even produce green technology or contribute to emission reductions and $334 million, over 186 cases, to projects for which board members held a direct conflict of interest. There were 186 cases, and no one flagged that there were that many conflicts of interest. It is unbelievable.

SDTC gave $58 million to projects without ensuring that contribution agreement terms were even met at all. The Auditor General also made it clear that the blame for the scandal falls on the industry minister who “did not sufficiently...monitor” the contracts that were given to Liberal insiders. I am wondering if perhaps the industry minister was maybe too busy organizing his own leadership campaign to keep an eye on the money or the department that he was giving money to. That is certainly not very responsible.

Let us dig a little deeper. There is the Minister of the Environment, who, after being arrested by Toronto police but before joining the Liberal cabinet, served as a strategic adviser for a venture capital firm called Cycle Capital from 2009 to 2018. The founder and owner of Cycle Capital, Andrée-Lise Méthot, sat on the board of the green slush fund. While she was on the board, she helped give $114 million to companies that she herself had invested in. Thanks to her strategic voting and the hard work of her strategic adviser, who had 25 meetings with the Prime Minister's Office and the industry department, the value of Cycle Capital strangely tripled.

When she finally left SDTC in 2022, Méthot was awarded for her great work and went on to join the Canada Infrastructure Bank's board, another Liberal debacle. While there, she helped get $170 million of infrastructure bank money for a company owned by the chair of the green slush fund, the aforementioned Annette Verschuren. We really cannot make this stuff up. We could make a movie about all this corruption. I should add that, according to the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Minister of the Environment still has a passive interest in Cycle Capital. We do not know how much he owns, but we do know, whatever he does own, the company tripled. That is a really good Liberal return on investment, if members ask me.

Not to be outdone, green slush fund board member Guy Ouimet admitted in committee that $17 million of green slush money went to companies he himself had a financial interest in. He said that this is a small amount of money. It might be for Guy, but for the residents in my riding, that is a lot of money.

How about those who are actively being punished by the government, which is desperate to raise revenue to pay for all of this corruption? These are people like Katie, a farmer in my riding, whose family also runs a grain drying and storage operation used by other local grain growers. She got a hold of me this week, actually. Her family, so far, has paid a total of $151,781.02 in carbon tax, plus $19,731.53 in HST, for a total of $171,512.55. The Liberals like to say that most Canadians get back more than they pay in carbon tax. If that is the case, Katie is still waiting for her $200,000 cheque.

That is what angers people about these scandals. In just this speech today, I have highlighted over two billion dollars' worth of Liberal corruption and mismanagement. Those are tax dollars for hard-working Canadians. We need to find where this money went. People deserve answers and need to be held accountable. That is why, on June 10, we asked for the production of various documents related to SDTC—

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

The hon. member's time is up.

We will move on to questions and comments with the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that we are here because the Conservatives moved a motion that would send this issue to a standing committee. Instead of allowing that to be voted upon, now they are filibustering, believing we should just release all the information unredacted to the RCMP directly. The RCMP commissioner said, on that issue, “There is significant risk that the Motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.”

Conservatives want us to listen to the Conservative Party over the RCMP. I say no, that would be a stupid thing to do. This is not the first time. We then have another issue that has come up. An article from iPolitics reads:

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.

“[The leader]'s idea that it’s sufficient for his chief of staff to be briefed for him and for his chief of staff to share that information with him is complete nonsense,” Wark told iPolitics.

Why does the Conservative leader not respect what the RCMP is saying about today and the security clearance issue?

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just want to begin by saying that this is my first time speaking to the motion. The residents of Simcoe—Grey want to hear from me. To me, this is not a filibuster. I would actually almost want an apology for him thinking that that is what I am trying to do here.

I would like to add, quite frankly, that it is quite simple if he would like to move along. The only people who are holding this up are from the Liberal Party. All the Liberals need to do is produce the documents. That is what we have been asking for. We are not the only people asking for it. It is not only the opposition asking for it. Obviously, there is something to hide. Show us the documents.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives talk a lot about Liberal corruption, but there was also a lot of corruption when they were in office. There is an old saying that “opportunity makes the thief”. Often, corruption occurs because the system allows that to happen.

I would like to know what the Conservatives are committed to doing to eliminate corruption.

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is important. I think it starts from the top. If we had a government that was looking out for the dollars of Canadians and understood how hard it is to make a dollar, it would probably make sure that message would get to the individuals who are involved in these offshoot companies.

No one from the government spoke after there were 186 conflicts of interest. We might see one, two or perhaps three. I come from a municipal background. I just cannot imagine 186 conflicts of interest and nobody speaking up. The 186 conflicts would not have taken place in a day, so this was a process. Quite frankly, it starts with the top leadership, and that is why I am very proud to be supporting our leader.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, workers in Alberta are uniting. They are uniting against low wages. They are uniting against a provincial government that is dead set on destroying the ability of workers to bargain collectively. On top of all this, there is a solution. Workers right across the province right now, today, are gathering at the Alberta legislature to demand justice for workers in the face of an affordability crisis. These workers are so important and so critical to our movement of making sure we have an affordable economy and good union jobs. These people are uniting right now in Alberta in the face of the evil backstepping on rights that is taking place in Alberta.

Does my hon. colleague support workers and their ability to collectively bargain in the face of an affordability crisis, largely brought on by the lack of initiative and the lack of support by the government?

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, in the House today we are talking about documents. I do not know if the member saw we are talking about the documents, so I am looking for questions about the documents. A lot of the questions we seem to be getting from the NDP are provincial ones, so I do not know if the members would like to perhaps run as MLAs. That might be a good idea so they could get those ideas out.

However, I want to work for the people in Simcoe—Grey here today, and what I want to do is get those documents released. Let us move on. Let us get the House going. All the government needs to do is show us the documents.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was very intrigued by my friend and learned colleague's long list of corruption scandals he indicated had happened over the last nine years.

I know him to be a strong local representative for the people of Simcoe—Grey. I am curious to know if he can tell the House what he has been hearing from his constituents in Simcoe—Grey over the last number of weeks about the challenges they are facing as a result of nine years of the Liberal government.

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I go to many events, and the frustration is terrible. People are hurting financially and emotionally. What is going on in this country is shocking to people. It is unfortunate that people have a bad view of politicians. What has happened after nine years of the Liberal government is that people's perception and mistrust are at an unbelievable level. It is like never before.

They tell me, quite frankly, that they want to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. They want a carbon tax election, and I can say that the good people of Simcoe—Grey will hopefully get their wish.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my hon. colleague would say yes if the government were to say, “Here are all of the documents that have been asked for. Let us send them to PROC and let PROC dive into the details” because I understand that was the original motion from the Conservative Party.

Would that be acceptable to the Conservatives, given that it was their original motion?

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, the idea behind what we are debating is that we want the documents to go to the RCMP. That is what the majority of the House has stated. It is a shame that is not what is happening. Obviously, there is some contempt of the House, and I think some real soul-searching should be done to see why the Liberals would not release those documents to the RCMP.

It is an outside force. Let it deal with the documents. There is something wrong.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about the importance of trust. I want to talk about the importance of our role as MPs. Our role is to ensure that what happens in government and in the machinery of government is fair, equitable, proper and ethical. The role of a committee is to assess how things are done and make sure they are done right. Its role is to offer suggestions for modifications and changes, so that processes are better applied.

In this case, what is the point of the Liberals holding on to information instead of working with all parliamentarians to improve processes? Does my esteemed colleague have an idea to explain their interest in withholding information?

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know why the Liberals would not want to be open and transparent and let this go to the RCMP. It is not like we are sending documents to one of our parties. We would be taking them to an outside authority. If there is nothing to hide, why would the government not want to do it?

This whole issue and delay is because of that one simple process. I have faith in our committees when we are there studying it, but that is not what we are debating here today and it is not what the House wanted to do. It is the same thing as the Winnipeg lab.

The House has spoken. Let us respect democracy and do the right thing.

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame has the floor. I can tell the hon. member he does not need his own timer. I am going to do it very well.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I figured you would just let me go on and on. I have ensured no harm can be done with that thing. If it rings, you can toss me, as you should have done with many members who have been out of line here today, especially on that side of the House.

It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the great people of Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame to speak on this privilege motion on the failure to produce documents pertaining to funds delivered inappropriately by Sustainable Development Technology Canada. This is just another reason Canadians have lost faith in the corrupt NDP-Liberal government. It is one of the reasons 24 of the very people connected to this Liberal slush fund have decided to sign a letter asking the Prime Minister to quit, which is what 40% plus of Canadians want him to do.

The government has become so corrupt that the business of the House has ground to a halt. This is the place where we represent the people who elected us and work on issues that are important to them, but no, the work has stopped. We have to debate this question of privilege until the corrupt entity across the way decides it has had enough and produces those documents, which the Chair of this House has demanded that it do.

There is quite a simple remedy. On June 10, a motion was adopted calling for the production of documents related to SDTC to the law clerk. What happened over the summer? Very little. The documents were either redacted on the order of the corrupt Prime Minister or simply not produced at all. The common-sense Conservative House leader raised a question of privilege because of the failure to comply with the order of this House.

On September 26, the Chair ruled that this House privilege had in fact been breached, so here we are debating and begging for accountability, once again, from the corrupt government that Canadians have had enough of. It is just another attempt to cover up Liberal corruption.

One might ask what is so corrupt about the green slush fund. The Auditor General sampled a five-year period of SDTC transactions and found that 82% were in conflict. Is anyone shocked? I doubt it. Twenty-four MPs just signed a document and presented it in caucus to the Prime Minister, demanding that he step down. They are demanding that he leave because his corruption and his cronies are taking away their chance of re-election, taking away their chance to sit in this place representing the people they love.

What does 82% of these SDTC transactions look like? It looks like $330 million that was found to have been granted to Liberal insiders in conflicts of interest. It was found by investigating only 226 of the 405 transactions approved by the board over that five-year period, so no doubt it is just the tip of the iceberg.

The board was headed by a close friend of the Prime Minister, Andrée-Lise Méthot, appointed in 2016. That chair received $250 million for her very own venture capital firm, Cycle Capital, in the form of grants from the board that she became chair of. We cannot make this up. Before Méthot joined the board, a radical jumpsuit environmentalist lobbied for her, before he became the radical Minister of Environment. He lobbied his crooked pals and the Prime Minister, and secured $111 million for her. Over Méthot's time on that board, a further $114 million went to so-called green companies she was invested in.

All together, so far, it is looking like around $390 million was dished out to Liberal insiders through just this one crooked slush fund. I will speak about another slush fund a little further along. This one is called the green one, and I will refer to the other one as the blue slush fund.

Let us get a little context here. The Chrétien sponsorship scandal was all over $42 million of taxpayer money that went to further the Liberal Party's cause at the time. That pales in comparison to the nearly $400 million represented in the green slush fund cover-up scandal.

Scandals are nothing new. We can look at the WE Charity. The Liberal government blew nearly $1 billion of taxpayers' money and passed it on to Liberal friends. This is nothing new. It is a continuation of a trend: SNC-Lavalin, the Aga Khan, the arrive scam, and it goes on and on. If the NDP-Liberal government is not removed from this place, it will continue.

This privilege debate over the green slush fund could come to an end very quickly. All the Prime Minister has to do is follow the orders of the Chair, produce the documents, unredacted, and the privilege debate would come to an end. It would be all over. We could get back to the business of the House, working on trying to fix the country. It is impossible to get through to the people who sit across the way and to the crooked Prime Minister. However, it is not just him.

There is something I am going to refer to as the blue slush fund, known to others as small craft harbours. It is going to be a real shocker. Would anyone be surprised to know that one member of the House, who just so happens to be the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, who administers the small craft harbours program, delivered 20% of the projects in this program to her very own riding this year?

Really, does that add up? There are 338 members in this House and one of them gets 20% of the small craft harbours budget for her own riding, and signs off on it herself. We have East Pubnico and West Pubnico, two harbours where the landed value of the catch is higher than the entire Pacific catch in the commercial fisheries, and they did not get a nickel. Vessels are four abreast and wharves are condemned and falling apart. The fish harvesters cannot even receive fuel shipments because the wharves are not safe enough for the fuel trucks to pass over. There are hazards to anyone who uses those wharves. They could fall through broken planks or whatnot. Ladders are missing.

What is happening is unbelievable. There are a whole bunch of ridings in Atlantic Canada where a disproportionate amount of catch is being landed compared with the funding they receive from small craft harbours, while the minister uses the program as her very own slush fund.

A few other things do not add up. I am not sure if members are aware that the oyster industry in P.E.I. is in great peril. In mid-July, it was discovered that the MSX parasite had been detected in three areas of P.E.I. By mid-August, the minister declared she is going to invest $500,000 a year in the P.E.I. oyster industry and have a summit this fall with industry experts to try to figure out what is going on. There have been no talks at a summit so far, but $500,000 this year and $500,000 next year have been committed to try to save an industry that means about $100 million to that small island economy.

A report that came out a couple of weeks ago from the CFIA says it thinks MSX has spread all over P.E.I. Everywhere that virus has shown up, it has completely decimated oyster populations. If the oyster industry gets wiped out, it will take a minimum of three generations, or nine years, to start to rebuild. Those in the oyster industry in Prince Edward Island reached out and asked me to go to P.E.I. to see them. They said they had to explain it. I went to P.E.I. in August to meet with the stakeholders in the oyster industry and hear their pleas. All these pleas were being made to save a $100-million industry, and the minister offered $500,000.

At the same time, the Atlantic healthy oceans initiative, or the AHOI group, an outfit that has five employees and three board members, one of whom works for two Liberal senators, received $1.8 million in grants. When I questioned the minister yesterday in the fisheries committee, she had no idea who they were, and neither did her deputies. No one knew who they were, but everyone knows of the oyster industry in Prince Edward Island and how much it means to the economy, cultural fabric and even the tourism industry in the province.

Everyone has heard of the Malpeque oyster, which, in 1905, was named the number one oyster in the world in a Paris competition. This is very serious. There was $500,000 for a $100-million industry, including spinoffs, and $1.8 million for an ENGO that has five employees. It just does not make sense. Where are the Liberals' priorities?

It is no surprise that Canadians are disgusted with the priorities of the government. It is no surprise that 24 backbenchers signed their names to have the Prime Minister take a walk. Canadians have suffered long enough. They have suffered through a record cost of living rise and record food bank usage. Most of this is driven by the carbon tax.

If the Liberal-NDP government stays in power long enough, and if common-sense Conservatives do not come to the rescue, Canadians are going to be paying 61¢ a litre for gasoline, for diesel and for any kind of energy that is petroleum-based that moves goods around the country.

Crime is out of control, both metro and rural. This country is broken. I stood in this House not long ago and I spoke about rural crime in my riding, which the media downplayed and said I was exaggerating. The RCMP also said that I was exaggerating and that it was not aware of a crime issue like what I laid out in this place.

However, people are living in fear. Our senior citizens have to sleep with a baseball bat or a gun next to their bed. The people who built this country, paid taxes, worked hard and raised families have now retired and are not able to sleep at night. They are afraid their homes are going to be broken into and robbed by someone who needs to feed a crack or a meth addiction. It has gone too far.

Canadians want an election. This country needs to heal. It needs to mend. It needs to go back to where it was before everything was broken. We are not going to deal with any of those things while we have to stand here day after day and debate this privilege motion. The Prime Minister is using it to deflect while he tries to get his infighting under control.

As long as we are debating this motion, we are not finding new ways in which the country has been broken and we are not putting forward the confidence motions that the people who sent us here dearly want. It is time to give the people what they want. They want an election. It is time for this debate to be over. It is time for the Prime Minister to produce the papers that he was told to produce.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Atlantic for his discussion this afternoon. He certainly took us on a journey and covered a lot of different topics. I am going to use that same latitude and take this opportunity to highlight a very important and exciting event that happened in the Atlantic.

On October 21, New Brunswick elected its very first female premier. We are so excited. As an advocate for women's rights, for trans and queer youth, for health care reform, for positive and meaningful engagement with indigenous communities, and moving forward on reconciliation, I am so proud of Premier-elect Holt. I invite my colleague, and everyone in this House, to share that congratulations.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, if the provincial election had been a little bit later on, like a little while down the road after the next federal election, maybe she would have been able to run provincially and pick up a seat down there, so I do not know. It is hard for me to say.

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

Madam Speaker, for once, I agree with a Conservative MP. At the end of his speech, my colleague said that it is high time for this debate to end. I could not agree more.

Moreover, having listened to him make his speech, I am now convinced that they have been told to read their speeches slowly so that we all fall sleep in the House. I am absolutely convinced of that.

Since they will not let us do our job as an opposition party—which would be to ask questions of the government—we have been racking our brains for the past three weeks trying to come up with questions.

I have an excellent question for him, which has nothing to do with the debate. Does he think that Quebec's desire for independence is legitimate, yes or no?

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I know that he said I read my speech. I read some of it, and I tried to go as slow as I could. Of course, being from Newfoundland and Labrador, if I went really fast, nobody would understand what I was saying, the interpreters might not be able to keep up and then my good friend from la belle province would not be able to get the true interpretation of my words.

However, I appreciate his enthusiasm for his cause, and I congratulate him on being able to hang on to all the royalties that are coming in from oil-producing provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador in the way of transfer funds.

If I had a chance to ask him a question back, I would ask how his province would survive without all those transfers. If they left Canada, they would not have access to Newfoundland's oil—