Debates of Oct. 28th, 2024

Questions on the Order Paper

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

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

Madam Speaker, not only did we have a question period where we had questions dealing with the issue of foreign affairs, but we also had members' statements dealing with foreign affairs. I think it is because Canadians have a right to know why the leader of the Conservative Party continues to refuse to get the security clearance so he can become better informed on the issue of foreign interference. The feeling is that he has something to hide, that there is something in his background preventing him from being able to get that security clearance, and this is a valid concern that continues to be raised.

While the Conservatives want to play the game of filibuster, maybe they can do some serious stuff here and give a clear indication of why the leader of the Conservative Party feels he is the only national leader who does not require a security clearance. Canadians have a right to know. Will the member give us some sense, some indication, of why his leader refuses to get that security clearance?

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

Madam Speaker, I hope the member opposite does not get too teary-eyed by what I have to say, but I am going to recommend him for a cabinet post: the minister of obfuscation. In lay terms, I would call that the minister of smoke and mirrors, because this is not relevant. The member is off on a tangent.

The truth of the matter is that the Speaker of the House, who is an elected Liberal member of Parliament, has ordered these documents to be forthcoming. Are they forthcoming? No, they are not. However, what has been forthcoming has been a lot of obfuscation.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have been waiting almost three weeks or more now for these papers to be produced, and the Liberals do not seem to be in any hurry to produce them. That makes me think there must be something really bad in them and somebody is going to jail. What does the member think?

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

Madam Speaker, I gave a number of reasons I thought the Liberals might be delaying this, letting the time just pass away. The fifth reason is that I think they really have something to hide. The Auditor General put forward an audit that showed, I believe, that 186 out of 230 contracts she looked into had conflicts of interest. If we extrapolate that to all the contracts, it would equal about $800 million to Liberal insiders getting involved. It looks like even a cabinet minister had been involved in one capacity or another, actually several. We can compare that with the sponsorship scandal that happened 20 years ago. This is 10 times the amount, and that is just one scandal we are dealing with. It is right across the government.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, of course, we are supporting the motion. We do not stand for Liberal scandals, and have proven that numerous times, but we do not stand for Conservative scandals either.

I am pleased to report that the B.C. NDP has now moved ahead in the recount. My colleague will be happy to know that it looks like the B.C. NDP will form a majority government in British Columbia, which is a wonderful thing.

Tonight, of course, we have the Saskatchewan election. However, the conservative Saskatchewan Party has been cited numerous times by the ethics commissioner in Saskatchewan, including, most recently, for the $731,000 stolen by an MLA for the conservative Saskatchewan Party, Gary Grewal.

Of course, during the Harper regime, we saw numerous scandals, which were all blocked by Conservatives. They would not let Canadians and taxpayers get to the bottom of any of those scandals, including the ETS scandal of $400 million, the G8 scandal of $1 billion and the Phoenix pay scandal of $2.2 billion.

So, my colleague can simply answer the question: Why are Conservatives so corrupt when they are in power?

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

Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that it does not just rest upon the shoulders of the Liberals, as far as all these scandals we are facing are concerned, including the one here on Sustainable Development Technology Canada. It rests upon the NDP because it is an NDP-Liberal government. The NDP has actually supported the government; it has kept the Liberals in power through all the scandals and hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. It rests on the NDP members, and so they have kept it. We have had non-confidence motions. They voted in favour of the government. Right now, they are allowing debate to go forward because they say they have to put a little separation between them and the Liberals, but the truth is, they vote for the Liberals constantly.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I shared earlier, since June, Greens have supported this motion's moving forward so that we can look into the mismanagement of funds by SDTC. Of course, we support the motion as well. As I also shared earlier, we have had some 90-odd Conservatives speaking to the motion now. They have spoken for almost 50 hours. They have spent over $3.3 million of House time speaking to it. There are opportunities for around 20 or so left.

Could the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge comment on how many more Conservatives will speak to the same motion, spending more money to do so?

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

Madam Speaker, that question really needs to go to the Liberals because they are the ones who are not producing the documents ordered by the Speaker. Why are they allowing the House to continue this debate? We do not support most of their legislation as it is; at the same time, this is ridiculous. It is just going on and on. It seems as though it is an excuse for them to prorogue government or just to keep the facts from being presented to Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, this is a Conservative motion that, ultimately, the Conservatives are filibustering in order to deal with any other legislative issues. It is, what I would argue, a contempt of sorts that we are witnessing. Now, today's leader of the Conservative Party was the parliamentary secretary to Stephen Harper, the only prime minister in the history of the Commonwealth that has been found in contempt of Parliament.

How does it demonstrate leadership when we have a Conservative opposition leader who is virtually in contempt of Parliament again and, at the same time, refusing to get the security clearance on the important issue of foreign interference? Why does the Conservative Party continue to support a leader that puts his party ahead of the nation?

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

Madam Speaker, once again, this is smoke and mirrors, not talking about the facts before us, as has been ordered by the Speaker. If the member is so adamant on this position, then he should present it to the Speaker to make a ruling. We are dealing with a motion of privilege. They can do one of two things: Either they can produce the documents, which would be what has been ordered, or they can at least admit that the documents incriminate friends, family and probably members of Parliament on the Liberal side. They can admit that they do not want to produce them, because they know none of them will get elected in that case.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I recall a time when this hon. member was actually running to be the Speaker of the House; when they came to caucus, they talked about procedural fairness. However, here they are, having clearly put forward a motion to frustrate the entire House of Commons. They can move the motion. It can be dealt with today.

Why does the member bank on the stupidity of his party's base in order to mislead Canadians to continue this farce? Madam Speaker, talk about ridiculous.

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

Madam Speaker, they actually support us in this motion, so it does not make any sense. It is obvious that they are trying to make an excuse to say they are going to let this slide, that they will support the Liberals once again in their scandals. That is typical NDP.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You bank on stupid.

Alleged Unparliamentary Language

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

Madam Speaker, I am sorry; I do not know the riding name of the member who was just speaking, but he referred to the other member as a word that I do not know if I can say in the House here. It is unparliamentary, Madam Speaker, and you might want to address this.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. I was in the process of introducing another member, so I did not quite hear what was said. I will certainly look at Hansard to see if we can hear what was said and come back to the House if required.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—University.

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

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, Liberal insiders are getting rich. That is what is happening here. This is what this all boils down to. I am often asked what is going on in Ottawa. Back in the riding, people want to discuss what it is truly like out here. In essence, the privilege motion we are debating today does just that.

An unfortunate series of events led us to this position. When asked by our constituents what is happening in Ottawa, we say that Liberal insiders are getting rich. In this case, $400 million in questionable spending has resulted in 186 conflicts of interest being identified so far.

How are Liberal insiders getting rich? We have to go back to what this program was for, how it was set up and how the board was picked to see how Liberal insiders got rich. We have a program, the Sustainable Development Technology Canada fund, which should be helping Canadians to leave our environment better than it is today. It is for technology. It is for initiatives that could help green our economy and our country, which is a noble goal for one fund.

However, as soon as the Liberals were elected in 2015, things changed. First, the Liberals changed the board. They also changed the chair of the board to an individual who, as the Auditor General has found, is in a conflict of interest. The actual chair of the board, who decides where all this money goes, was hand-picked by the Prime Minister. Can we guess which companies she picked? They were her very own. That is Liberal insiders getting rich.

It is not just the case of the chair of the board; we found conflicts of interest over 180 times, with the board of directors investing in companies for the environment. However, they were really doing it so the Liberals could get rich. We have seen this with the Minister of the Environment, who is the owner of a company that got money. It is interesting to go through some of the details regarding who got rich, who owns shares and who owns some of these companies that got money. It is frustrating because the Auditor General found this; they found the corruption and the conflict of interest in these cases.

What happens when there is a crime? Do we call a meeting of local people to discuss that crime, or do we call the RCMP? This should be going to the RCMP. I am not the one saying this; many people have testified that it is questionable, regarding the different groups that got rich from this.

We are very grateful to the whistle-blowers out there. I thank the men and women who work in the public service for the work that they do and for doing what, I believe, is what is right for our society. The work that the bureaucrats do is administrating the wishes of the government. Therefore, when selecting a new board, the names would have been forwarded by the Prime Minister; maybe there would have been some quick background checks and some procedural things to get the people on board. I am very grateful for these bureaucrats, who work tirelessly to make sure that Canada provides for its citizens as much as they need, and it is with the disdain of these people's views of what actually happened—

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The interpreters are saying that there is a telephone causing interference. That can hurt the interpreters' ears and damage their hearing.

We need to listen to them.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There may be a telephone sitting on a desk that seems to be causing some interference, whether it is on the member's desk or somebody else's. I would ask members to put their telephone on airplane mode or to remove it from their desk.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, because it is becoming a repetitive issue, perhaps you could remind speakers that their phones need to be taken off their desks when you recognize them, so we are saving the hearing of our interpreters.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate that. Maybe we could have all the House leaders or the whips make sure that their members are reminded about that. I would tend to think that is the proper way to go. I will certainly speak to our Speaker on this matter as well.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, the SDTC program was set up to help Canadian companies and individuals with technology and programs related to the environment. It was set up to help meet the needs of the challenges we have with the environment.

One of the signature pieces of the Liberal platform was the environment. However, what happened when the Liberals got control, when they got keys to the bank and to SDTC? It did not take long. There were $400 million and 186 conflicts of interest. This is why we owe a debt of gratitude to whistle-blowers. This is the evidence that needs to be turned over to the RCMP. That is why we are here today.

When people back in our constituencies, or anyone who is watching from Saskatoon—University right now, ask us what is going on, it is Liberal insiders getting rich. This is the prime example. The Prime Minister's hand-picked board of the green slush fund has doled out over $400 million improperly.

I think of Jill who runs a cafeteria. She is an entrepreneur. I know how hard she works. I remember the conversation about some of the struggles she has had in the last few years and how hard she has to work to pay her employees, pay her rent and pay her taxes. I think about how much the average person earns in a year and how that person is forced to provide money to the government to go into programs like the green slush fund, that $400 million account. The government turned around and gave it to Liberal insiders, people on the board who had conflicts of interest. It is a crime that should be investigated by the RCMP. That is why we are seized with this debate today.

There is an order of the House of Commons. The majority of members agreed that the evidence should go to the RCMP. The Liberals said that they would send the documents, but then blocked it all out. They redacted the details that were sent to the RCMP. It is a sad day in Canada when the federal government does not trust the RCMP. That is why we are here today. We want that evidence turned over to the RCMP.

Canadians should have a great deal of gratitude for some of the people who worked on this file, people who could not take the corruption, and they became whistle-blowers. They alarmed the public. They alarmed the opposition. They alarmed anybody who would listen to them. There is something that stinks with this green slush fund. Let us hear from them.

I want to read some quotes from a SDTC whistle-blower:

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

The criminality is for a judge and a court to decide down the road, but the first step is for the RCMP to get all of the evidence to understand who got rich and why.

The whistle-blower continued:

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.

What is in full authority to investigate? It is cabinet documents and it is evidence that shows how Liberal insiders got rich.

The whistle-blower said:

...if you bring in the RCMP and they do their investigation and they find something or they don't, I think the public would be happy with that. I don't think we should leave it to the current federal government or the ruling party to make those decisions. Let the public see what's there.

This is key. It is the old adage that sunlight is the best disinfectant. We should open up the books and jail the crooks if there are insiders getting rich on just this fund. This is $400 million, which is an eye-watering amount, but we should not forget all the pandemic spending. That is tens of billions of dollars and more.

This is where Canada finds itself right now. The current government has added more federal debt than all other prime ministers combined. This thing stinks. We are talking $400 million here and tens of billions of dollars of questionable contracts during COVID. This is like the 1990s again, but in the 1990s, it was cheap. The Liberals only stole $30-some million in the sponsorship scandal. This scandal alone is $400 million.

Think of the good that we could do in our society with that money. Think of the two million people every month relying on the food bank to feed themselves. Think of the 1,400 encampments in the city of Toronto that could be helped. We could give people the dignity of a space until they get off the ground and onto their feet. That is what a government should be doing instead of making sure that Liberal insiders are getting paid. That is what has happening here. There is so much need.

I would like to talk briefly about why the SDTC was set up, which was for environmental initiatives in Canada. It is quite clear that the government pretends to care about the environment and that it wants fewer emissions. Meanwhile, we have a Prime Minister who jet-sets anywhere in the world at a drop of a dime anytime he wants, and he does jet-set around the world. The carbon footprint and hypocrisy in that is outstanding. It is not like there is a need.

In a fund like this, I think of nuclear workers, especially in Ontario. If they are watching this, I know the Liberal government has insulted them, included them in sin stocks and ignored the importance of nuclear power. We are in Ontario and these lights are probably kept on right now by nuclear power. It's how our country, specifically Ontario, got off coal. Nuclear power is why we do not have smog days anymore in Toronto. I thank the men and women who work in the nuclear industry, which relates to this $400 million that went to Liberal insiders, the men and women who work on the refurbishment of the CANDU reactors.

Anyone who works in the supply chain for our reactors in Canada and around the world knows that AtkinsRéalis has a need for some federal support, especially with the MONARK reactor that it is trying to get off the ground. We would think this would be a perfect fit for the SDTC fund. It is a sustainable development technology. It is nuclear. It is what got Ontario off coal. It is what is delivering clean, affordable electricity to the people of Canada. It is technology, not taxes, that is going to solve the problem. It may have been mentioned before that it is technology, not taxes, but it is the men and women who work in the nuclear industry today and their technology. It has always been technology that has solved the challenges that we face as a country and as a society.

When I was young, acid rain was a terrifying idea. The media said that the rain would wash away our bridges, roads and buildings. As a young boy, I was very concerned about acid rain. It was not a tax that fixed that problem, it was technology. A similar problem was the ozone layer and the hole that was being created in our atmosphere. It was technology, not taxes that fixed that problem.

Once again, if we had a government, maybe a newly elected government with some common sense, it would take a program that is meant for environmental technology and take that fund and invest it in nuclear, which actually reduces emissions and helps our environment.

The most frustrating thing about this is that the waste taking place could have actually solved some problems, especially in the environment. If AtkinsRéalis had had some support from the federal government, maybe the MONARK would be able to fly by now. However, it did not happen. Liberal insiders got rich.

It is not just me who is saying this; it is the whistle-blowers who came forward with all the conflicts of interest that took place. I am going to read a couple more quotes from some whistle-blowers.

One quote reads:

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.

Another quote reads that if a person works in nuclear, and that person wants us to continue to be the leader that we are on clean, affordable nuclear energy, it must boil the blood to read these government whistle-blowers talk about how a fund that should help industry helped Liberal insiders instead. This is wrong, and we know that. It is wrong that the companies of insiders, either board members or the chair of the fund itself, were funded. They voted and attended meetings and had discussions about this.

How much worse will we find in the evidence that this place voted for? This place has voted that the evidence should be turned over unredacted to the RCMP for a full investigation.

Anyone who knows what has been going on in Ottawa knows there is a lot more money than $400 million that has been misspent, misappropriated and blown on insiders. The day is coming and the dawn is breaking. Canadians are coming out of the dark period that has categorized the last nine years of failure and this failing regime is coming to an end.

There is a breath of fresh air coming, and the disinfectant we need is the sunlight that will uncover who got rich and who ordered which companies to receive funds. We know the environment minister has investments in Cycle Capital that received millions of dollars from this fund as well.