House of Commons Hansard #361 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cbc.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Madam Speaker, first, this is the highlight of my day. Second, I appreciate the sincerity with which the member asked the question. Third, I am not concerned because this type of seizure is authorized by law. It is the searches and seizures not authorized by law that are subject to charter scrutiny.
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Madam Speaker, today, October 29, will likely not be the only opportunity I have to speak in the House before October 31, which is Halloween, but before I begin my speech, I want to wish all the children in Canada, particularly those in Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier, a very happy Halloween. The weather will be nice. I urge them to be careful. On Halloween, there are sometimes witches and people who scare us. I want them to be careful and vigilant. On November 1, it will all be over.
The work of the House has been paralyzed for over a month. I am rising today to add my voice to those of my other Conservative Party colleagues because the government is still refusing to produce documents related to Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC.
Before I continue, I have here the Speaker's ruling of September 26. I will not read the whole thing, but here is an excerpt. He said the following, and I quote:
Colleagues, I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on September 16 by the House leader of the official opposition, concerning the alleged failure to produce documents pertaining to Sustainable Development Technology Canada.
I will skip two pages and read a short paragraph.
As it stands, the motion was adopted. The House has clearly ordered the production of certain documents, and that order has clearly not been fully complied with. The Chair cannot come to any other conclusion but to find that a prima facie question of privilege has been established. However, before inviting the House leader of the official opposition to proceed with the moving of a motion, I would like to make a few comments on the type of motion the Chair would consider to be appropriate in the circumstances.
We know the outcome. The Speaker of the House ruled in favour the question of privilege. That is why we have been discussing this subject for nearly a month.
It was clear. The order requiring the government to produce a series of unredacted documents related to this organization was passed by a majority of MPs on June 10. We owe it to ourselves to be transparent. Occasionally, as the official opposition, we are criticized for using the tools at our disposal. This one is written in the books, and the invaluable table officers reference the House of Commons procedures every day to ensure that we comply with those procedures.
For several years, SDTC has been embroiled in a Liberal scandal known as the “green slush fund”. These documents were supposed to be handed over to the RCMP, but the government failed to comply with the order of the House and still refuses to do so. What got us to this point was the Auditor General's conclusion that SDTC officials broke conflict of interest laws 186 times and funnelled $400 million of taxpayers' money to their own companies. That is $400 million of Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars ending up in the pockets of Liberal government cronies.
Let us break down how that $400 million was wasted. The Auditor General is not a member of the official opposition, nor is she a member of the second or third opposition party. She is not an independent MP or some ordinary person. The Auditor General is the Auditor General.
Ten ineligible projects were awarded $58 million. Those projects did not meet the eligibility criteria. None of them could demonstrate an environmental benefit or the development of green technology despite that being one of the eligibility criteria. Those projects got money anyway. In 186 cases, $334 million was allocated to projects that put board members in a conflict of interest. I repeat: in 186 cases, the projects were linked to board members. Where I come from, and in the Conservative Party, we call that a conflict of interest. Another $58 million was awarded to projects that did not comply with the terms and conditions of the contribution agreement.
That is how the $400 million was spent. Keep in mind that those are the Auditor General's numbers.
This is my third term of office and I could write volumes on the number of scandals, the mismanagement, and the lack of management by this government, which has been in power since I arrived in the House of Commons. The government has been in power for nine years. If we listen to Canadians, people are fed up, exhausted, and impoverished. They want an election. However, the obstruction continues with the help of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc Québécois seems to have changed its mind today. Time will tell, but Bloc members have little to show for their ultimatum, which ends today. During his presentation, I asked the Bloc Québécois leader what would happen on the morning of October 30. We will return to that later.
This government is asking us to stop doing our work to help it move forward. I will give an example. At the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we moved a motion to understand the process that led to the appointment of the current Governor General, who was chosen by this government that claims to be a defender of the French language and to have concern for both official languages here in Canada. However, it appointed a Governor General who does not speak French, one of the two official languages of our beautiful country, Canada.
I just wanted to share that information. Nearly 80% of Canadians care about bilingualism, but when we talk about bilingualism, we are talking about French and English. It is unique to our country. We need to protect this bilingualism. It is a strength that attracts people who have the chance to be able to use both languages.
We wanted to understand how this was done because it is a mystery and we moved a motion in committee.
It was a bunch of insiders who decided among themselves to appoint a governor. In SDTC's case, a bunch of insiders decided to pad the pockets of Liberal cronies. We have seen this before.
The Liberals were in committee, supported by the NDP. They said there was not enough time to discuss this or it was not the right time to discuss it. When will it be time to discuss it? The government keeps putting this off, and now it is criticizing us for doing our job. It is accusing us of acting in bad faith. True, if we did not do that, we would not be doing our job. This is another example of this government's lack of judgment and lack of respect. I find that troubling.
That is not to impugn Ms. Simon's competence or skills. Anyone here in the House chosen to be Governor General would have agreed to learn French. It is perfectly understandable. I can vouch that learning a second language is no easy feat. I can attest to that. I try, but I make no claim to be bilingual. Ms. Simon is a person of good faith and a good Canadian, and she is entitled to respect.
She is not the problem. The problem is the appointment process. This government says that it will not delve deeply into the matter or disclose the procedures it followed for all Canadians to see. I will leave it to Canadians to be the judge.
As a staunch defender of the French fact, I am pleased to contribute to the official languages file and to have been a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, whose work included the modernization of the legislation that received royal assent in June 2023. Reaching the point of royal assent, however, was quite an undertaking.
Bill C-13 is another example of this government's botched work. I will give two examples. The act that received royal assent in June 2023 contains two orders in council. The first gives the Commissioner of Official Languages the tools to impose monetary penalties, in other words, fines. It is October 29, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, just before Halloween 2024, which means it has been over a year since it received royal assent. However, no one on the other side of the House, from the government side, can tell me when the order will be tabled. Since the Liberals claim to care about both official languages and the French fact, that is not very impressive.
Part 2 of the act will also come into force as soon as an order is tabled and approved by cabinet. This order establishes the implementation of part 2 of the Official Languages Act on the right to work in the language of one's choice. Once again, it has been radio silence. There is no timeline for when the order will be tabled.
I will add that there are regulations that need to be written in the application of the law. Does anyone know how long it is going to take to write the regulations? It will take a third of the time of the revision, or three and a half years. Is it normal, where there is the will and the intent to protect both official languages, to have brought in legislation and say that it is going to take three and a half years to write the regulations? That is the action of people who do not have the will and the intent.
My question is simple. When will the government ensure that French is respected here in Canada, which, until further notice, is a bilingual country that uses French and English?
Let us not forget that. Also at the Standing Committee on Official Languages in May and June, the Liberals doggedly protected one of their own and blocked the committee's work for more than seven meetings. They did this to protect one of their friends, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, who said witnesses from Quebec were full of something I will not mention here. There is a disconnect within the party. The Liberals are the ones filibustering. The Liberals are the ones preventing us from getting things done. In my opinion, they like it that way because they do not know what to do.
If they really wanted to get down to business and run our country, they would simply produce the documents. It would take a day, maybe two, at most, and then we could move on, but no, they want to blame us for what is happening.
As I said, according to procedure, there is a process. There are rules. This was confirmed by the Speaker of the House. What I am saying is that it would be so simple to produce the documents. The Liberals' argument as to why they are not doing so is that the RCMP wants the documents, does not want the documents, wants some of the documents or wants the documents this way or that way. That is not important. The important thing is that the House ordered this government to provide unredacted documents. The RCMP will do what it wants with them afterwards. All we want is for the government to abide by the Speaker's order.
Several years ago, we had the Gomery commission. I am sure members will remember that. It was the 2004 Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities that was tasked with getting to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal. It smacked of corruption, and the same thing seems to be happening here in the House of Commons in 2024. Once again, this government is trying to protect itself. What is it trying to protect itself from? If the Liberals are so honest and transparent, all they have to do is produce the documents. It is not complicated.
The list of things that make us doubt their honesty is long. As I mentioned, I have been an MP since 2015. One of my colleagues, Frank Baylis, was elected in 2015. We went through the pandemic and, in 2019, Mr. Baylis chose not to run again. As luck would have it, he became an expert on respirators. He quickly gained access to government contracts to sell respirators. These are public funds. What is there to hide? This is a great opportunity for Liberal friends.
Of course, a series of events over the past nine years come to mind. I will list them briefly. There was the Aga Khan's island trip, for which the Prime Minister was found guilty. There was the abuse of protocol activities in India. There were the Jamaica vacations, ArriveCAN, SNC-Lavalin, McKinsey, partisan judicial appointments, and so on.
While Liberal friends are getting richer, the cost of living has skyrocketed. Canadians do not need to be poorer. They have a right to know. I think it would be a significant gesture on the part of the Liberals, after the months that have gone by and been wasted, to proceed with the tabling of these documents and respect the hard-working Canadians who are striving for a better quality of life in Canada. It is all part of the process.
Why are politicians so mistrusted? The answer is simple. It is because the Liberal government's elected officials refuse to co-operate and be transparent.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, the member is having flashbacks with respect to the issues with this particular government. I will remind him of when the leader of the Conservative Party was a part of the Conservative government. I have a booklet on abuses of power, scandals and corruption, and I could list off 70-plus scandals, abuses of power and corruption by the Harper government that the current leader was a part of. There was the Senate hush money scandal, contempt of Parliament, refusal to share budget information, granted immunity testimony and so forth.
I say that because of how the Conservatives have changed. There is a legitimate reason that we cannot hand the information over to the RCMP, let alone the fact that it has said this would not be appropriate. Suffice it to say that the current leader of the Conservative Party was part of a government in which the then prime minister was held in contempt of Parliament because he refused to produce the types of documents they are calling for now. Why the substantial flip-flop when they could not justify it in their situation?
Here we are listening to the RCMP as opposed to the Conservatives. Does the member not see a bit of hypocrisy?
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question. He is always very involved in the debates.
I want to point out that the Conservative Party of Canada is not the party that has corruption baked into its DNA. Canada's Conservatives have never been involved in a sponsorship scandal. My colleague's argument is that the RCMP does not want any documents, or that it wants only half of them, or that it wants them in a certain way. That is not what matters. What the Liberals are doing is deflecting the debate.
The Speaker of the House of Commons asked that complete, unredacted documents be produced. What does my colleague not understand about that?
Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Madam Speaker, my colleague talked at length about languages and the fact that French is under threat. He sits on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
French is indeed under threat. This weekend, I learned something that I never knew before, which is that French is the 17th most spoken language in Toronto and about the eighth most spoken language in Calgary and Edmonton. It is not doing too well. It is not doing too well in Quebec either. All the indicators are red. The Official Languages Act promises to send $700 million over the next five years to Quebec's anglophone community. How much is being sent to Quebec's endangered francophone community? Just $50 million. Anglophones represent 8% of the population and are under no threat whatsoever in North America, but they get $700 million, while only $50 million can be spared to protect French.
If the Conservatives take power in a year's time, will my colleague commit to reviewing this absurd funding arrangement?
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert for his question. I appreciate his comment. He recognizes that French is in decline in Canada.
Now, we are in a country. As the Conservative Party shadow minister for official languages, I care deeply about official language minority communities. Yes, we recognize the decline of French. We need to take action. We must protect and promote both official languages.
The fact that French is the 17th most spoken language in Toronto and the eighth most spoken language in Alberta is indeed tragic. It just goes to show that the bill that was introduced, to which I proposed many amendments that were unfortunately rejected by the Liberal government and its friends in the NDP, proves I am right to be concerned about the French language and how it will be protected in the coming years. I agree with my colleague.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Madam Speaker, I am guessing my colleague will not be overly surprised by the question I am about to ask him. I am desperately trying to find a Conservative who will tell me the truth on this subject.
Earlier, he said that we are here to work, to take care of people and to improve people's quality of life. I could not agree more. That is why the NDP forced the minority government to set up a dental care program. There are already 800,000 Quebeckers enrolled, 240,622 of whom have already paid a visit to the dentist.
Should the Conservative Party ever take power, can my colleague assure seniors that it will maintain the dental care program that is helping so many Quebeckers?
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his question. It gives me the opportunity to tell him that the Conservative Party of Canada is very sensitive to seniors' needs. Just this morning, I welcomed a delegation from the Fédération des aînées et aînés francophones du Canada to my office.
Its representatives asked me about two things: employability and affordable rent. I told them that there are two groups I see as important. The first is young people, who are the future of our country, and the second is seniors, who made this country what it is today. When we compare ourselves to others, we feel okay, but we can do better. I can assure my colleague that we are going to pay special attention to seniors here in Canada.
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
Madam Speaker, we have asked opposition members a number of questions today. Here is my question. I am very proud that we have two official languages in Canada. I was born in the Waterloo region. My mother tongue is Punjabi. My second language is English, and my third language is French. I am very proud that my father fought very hard to give me the opportunity to go to a French immersion school.
I would therefore like to ask the member what he thinks when his Conservative colleagues tell people in the House to, as they put it, “speak English”.
What are my colleague's thoughts on that?
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Waterloo for her question and commend her on her French.
This is an issue that we are familiar with. We debated it this morning at the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
I will make a comparison. In May, the Liberal member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell insulted witnesses from Quebec who appeared before the committee. He said they were “full of” something. As I said in my speech, I will let people fill in the blank.
All of the Liberal members rose to support and defend this member. It took five days for him to offer a half-hearted apology. That was after saying that he did not need to apologize, that he was not going to apologize and that he was sorry if he had hurt people's feelings. It took five days for him to apologize.
As for my colleague, unfortunately, I was not here. I was attending a francophone event on Prince Edward Island. However, my colleague apologized within two hours. I am saying it was two hours to hedge my bets, but I am sure it was less than that. He apologized.
We are seeing a double standard here. I think that the Conservatives care a lot more about bilingualism in Canada than the Liberals do.
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Madam Speaker, I just wanted to get my colleague's thoughts on something here. Back in the 1990s, the Liberals were famous for the sponsorship scandal, in which former prime minister Chrétien was trying to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on building unity after the Quebec referendum.
However, Liberal insiders took advantage of a national unity crisis to get rich, with over $100 million being awarded to them. Now we see it again; Liberal insiders are making themselves rich.
What does my colleague have to say about that?
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Madam Speaker, my colleague has once again demonstrated that the Liberal Party of Canada has no conscience and no respect for public funds. It is wasteful. Once again, what is happening here in the House is just further confirmation of this corrupt government's entire record.
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have a colleague across the way who is asking, “How many more Conservatives have they got to speak on this?”
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Yes, we have lots, Mr. Speaker. You are now getting the real guys out here, the cleanup crew.
I am sure we have given you the opportunity, across the way, to have righteous indignation at what we say—
The Acting Speaker Conservative Todd Doherty
I will remind the hon. colleague to direct his questions and his comments through the Chair.
The hon. member for Bow River.
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Mr. Speaker, I apologize and withdraw that comment.
I have had many constituents communicate with me and ask me to clarify what we are doing here, and it is very simple. A ruling by the Speaker said, “We would like documents produced, unredacted.” That is all that needs to be done. They ask, “Why can that not happen?” We are asking the same thing, day after day, speech after speech. That is what we are doing here today. It is democracy and we are proud to be here and speak in the House. This is the House of the commoners. This is the House where we have the opportunity to express our opinions and I appreciate the opportunity to do it. For the last three weeks, we have been asking for the unredacted documents, as directed by the Speaker.
Sustainable Development Technology Canada was a non-profit corporation that started more than 20 years ago. It was to “demonstrate new technologies to promote sustainable development, including technologies to address issues related to climate change and the quality of air, water and soil”. People from an agricultural background know there have been so many innovations to do with soil and so many things developed so our agriculture is the best in the world. Agricultural programs that this fund would supposedly support are critical to Canada and to the agriculture expertise that we often share with the world because we are leading experts in it.
I am in an area where water is so critical for irrigation, and with the technology developed in the last few years, we are able to irrigate 30% more land with the same amount of water. That takes a lot of understanding, technology and research. SDTC was the kind of organization that would direct funds toward projects of real value to us.
Since the foundation began, there were nine contribution agreements with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada committing $2.1 billion in funding. It approves grants and distributes over $100 million a year. Now, regarding distributing grants, I had a recent conversation with the president of the University of Alberta, and this is the kind of topic he is interested in for the types of research going on at the University of Alberta. In an article, he states:
...we understand energy, and we understand innovation. After more than a century of energy breakthroughs, we have learned the key to success: when you bring together the right people, you push the boundaries of innovation.
However, the president of the university understands it takes co-operation: “This Alberta-based project brings together academia, industry, and government to advance the solutions”.
That is what SDTC was about. It was about that co-operation. That is how, he says, we diversify our economy. This is the president of the University of Alberta saying we need “co-ordinated effort from all levels of government, industry partners, and academic leaders.” That is what this fund was for. It was to give grants for coordinated efforts. He said:
Alberta’s long record of energy research and innovation makes it the ideal setting to move forward emerging energy opportunities. Dr. Amit Kumar is opening Canada up to the global hydrogen market—predicted to be at $1.9-trillion by 2050—by blending hydrogen with natural gas without any costly changes to existing infrastructure.
...Dr. Dan Alessi is addressing the lithium supply gap by extracting the valuable metal from oilfield brines....
These are the kinds of research projects this money would have been good for, but what happened to it? Well, University of Alberta researchers are very concerned, because they are looking for projects that they know can develop diversity in our economy.
In 2023, after years of significant whistle-blower concerns and malpractice, the Auditor General announced an audit of the slush fund. Why was she poking at this? There seems to have been a whistle-blower out there who saw a problem and did not get satisfaction.
Probably everybody in this room, which is packed full of people, has been on many boards and in many agencies. When people are on boards and in agencies, they go through training about what to do on a board. They get training about ethics, procedures and conflicts of interest.
I remember as a mayor, we had a banker as a councillor. That banker knew if we talked about anything to do with banks, they were not at that meeting and were excused for that reason. They did not want to be in a conflict of interest. We have all been in situations and have learned that. We know that, yet we had a board that would have gone through training, made up of members who had had experience. I am sure they would not have been on that board if they did not have that kind of knowledge. Then we had bureaucrats sitting there, senior bureaucrats, at meeting after meeting, not saying, “Board members, I think we have an issue here. You need to reconsider what you are doing here.” Those bureaucrats did not stop them.
It is problematic when we have board members who I am sure were experienced, who came from the private sector, from non-profits. They understood what it means to be a board member and what due diligence is, and they were dealing with $1 billion of taxpayers' money that we needed for innovation in this country.
The Auditor General looked at a few of those contracts. She looked at a few, and almost $400 million of taxpayers' money went through votes in ways that should not have happened. That money went in a different direction than it should have. That is very drastic. Not only did the University of Alberta's president say the university needed that innovative money in a proper way, and there are a lot of projects that need it, but the Premier of Alberta wrote a letter in support of the U of A president, asking the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry to consider carbon capture, hydrogen, critical minerals, and water and land reclamation.
We have the Premier of Alberta, along with the U of A president, saying that was the kind of resource money they need for innovation. Alberta innovates in co-operation with federal grants, and I have seen some of the projects. There were five projects done in the Calgary area. One was very curious; they were extracting carbon from the atmosphere, and they turned some of it into vodka. People asked, “How can you turn carbon into vodka?” Well, the consumers of vodka said it was one of the best out there.
Another one of the things they did, when we got innovation and grants handed out in the right way, was with cement. It takes fly ash to make cement, which has a huge green footprint, but they found a way to put carbon fibres in instead of fly ash, which reduced the carbon footprint. That is how Alberta innovates. That is how, with money from federal grants, in co-operation with researchers, they can produce changes that we are looking for in our environment. However, there were board members making decisions to spend taxpayers' money and give it to themselves by passing motions in an improper, unethical way.
That is one of the challenges we have with carbon tax. It is not directed into creating projects in our country. It is taking money away from people, and as the government says, 80% of it goes back to them. Well, what about not taking it away in the first place?
However, the carbon tax is really causing a problem in a different way, and most people do not talk about this. When we have school boards, such as mine or that of my neighbour beside me from Medicine Hat, which are very rural, we think of all the school buses that travel in those rural ridings and the amount of carbon tax that is paid by school boards for busing and buildings. The carbon tax on that is incredible. We can then take a look at what the carbon tax costs for all the health care facilities; it is not going to innovation. There are fewer teachers and fewer nurses. This is a problem with the carbon tax. It is handicapping our health care and our school systems with fewer staff, and it is not going into innovation.
It is a problem when we have taxes misdirected, and we have a billion-dollar fund out there that was supposed to be giving contracts to people for innovation. However, what were they doing with it? They were giving it to each other for their own companies. When the slush fund approved $8.56-billion funding for 420 projects, only 58 of the projects were checked on, but they found a problem. In 90 separate cases, conflict of interest policies were not followed. How do they not follow these policies? How do the bureaucrats sitting in the room not say that they should take a look at the procedure and make sure they are following it?
To expand on that, our great committee members exposed that, in the funding transactions approved by the board of directors during a five-year sampling, the Auditor General looked at 82% as conflicted. Wow, we are now up to hundreds of millions of dollars in conflicted decisions; this is why we are here. It is our job to hold the government to account for taxpayers' money. As some people have said, when we get to millions and hundreds of millions, people lose track of what that means to the average taxpayer. When my agricultural producers pay $100,000 in carbon tax, they know what $100,000 is. It hurts. When we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars, that is a big number.
What is the timeline on the scandals? We have heard this before. We heard the member across the way referring to the Harper government. There may be some people on this side who were here at that time, but most of us were not. In talking about the time frame that we are in, the Liberals are in government; however, they try to explain that the people who were in power before did something wrong. They say it is all right when they are in power, and they should not be held accountable for it. However, the people in charge at the time are the people we hold to account. If it is the government in power now, then that is who we hold to account for this.
I remember the Vice-Admiral Norman case, which was a very brutal case. Our senior military navy official was really ruined by decisions of this particular cabinet. He was charged, but did he ever go to court? No, after the two years of his life being ruined, there was a settlement; it never went to court. That is how the Liberal government started out, with the Vice-Admiral Norman controversy. It is well documented. Members can find it if they research it. However, what upset me and many others was how they ruined a tremendous military man's career, his family and his life. That is how they started out in corruption, by ruining one of our significant military commanders of the navy in this country.
There was the cash for access scandal, which is a problem, with the Chinese government and the things involved with that, the rich lobbyists and businessmen, and events in Toronto and Vancouver.
Then we got into the Aga Khan's island. Most people in the world that we live in would understand the common-sense things that we do in terms of what crosses the line, what is illegal and what is in the grey zone versus what is strictly out of bounds. The Aga Khan scandal was strictly not understanding what most people understand: what is right and wrong.
There are still people who bring up the infamous India trip to me and ask why he was doing what he did in a number of ways on that trip. That was six years ago; we have still not recovered in the agricultural sector and trading. It has been brutal on the ag sector because India and Canada were trading partners in agriculture. That started to deteriorate because of the India trip in 2018. It was not the costumes alone that created a significant problem for us; it was also someone he brought with him: the terrorist at the dinner party. India is moving quickly to become the largest population in the world; it has power in agriculture that we need in trade. That was a brutal one.
Then there was SNC-Lavalin. I have read the former attorney general's book. If people have not read that book, they should. This was a person who understood what was right and wrong and understood where the lines were. I had a couple of conversations with her about legislation that she had passed in the House, and I supported the position she took on some significant legislation. She was a real politician, understanding what needed to be done and what was right and wrong. If people have not read her book, it shows how she spoke the truth; how she said, “We have crossed the line; we cannot do that”; and how she realized things were unethical. It was a sad day.
Along with the former attorney general, there was Jane Philpott. She was a strong cabinet member; she continues her work and is now working on health issues in Ontario. SNC-Lavalin was a huge scandal, and its repercussions continue to this day. The ethical decisions made just do not make any sense.
WE Charity was another tough one. That affected so many youth because representatives spoke around the country. I remember my grandson going to a WE Charity event in Calgary, but in the background, the organization got into a very unethical process.
The Winnipeg lab scandal was another serious ethical one.
The ArriveCAN scam is just brutal; we are still working at it today.
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech; he mentioned many things, including cash for access, but it is my understanding that the Leader of the Opposition is having fundraisers at private homes all over the country. Somehow, we do not speak about that. However, let us put that aside; I am more interested in arguments about funding technology.
Whenever governments make economic decisions, there is room for criticism, even when there is no conflict of interest or corruption. Whenever people make decisions about which companies to fund and not to fund, they are picking winners and losers. In the view of free market economists, such as Milton Friedman, they are distorting markets.
Does the member not agree that the most elegant solution and mechanism for fighting climate change is the price on carbon because it is not government making decisions? Instead, individual citizens are making purchasing decisions every day. We could call it total freedom.
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Madam Speaker, it is an interesting topic. I see the millions of dollars that leave my riding for the carbon tax and not for an investment in innovation. The private sector has worked with academics and Alberta Innovates, with some federal money in there. They develop projects because they bring the manpower of all those sectors to the table. That is where we get innovation that works, not with the carbon tax.
In my riding, when we see the millions of dollars that leave, we penalize the health system and penalize the school system. There are fewer teachers. There are fewer nurses. We have to talk about the penalties of the carbon tax. The money is not going to innovation. It is being taken away and people are getting 80% back. I say do not take it away in the first place.
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Madam Speaker, when we were talking about the carbon tax earlier, a question was asked. The net-zero accelerator is an $8-billion slush fund to reduce emissions for the heaviest emitters in Canada. Of the $8 billion apportioned, over $50 million can be fast-tracked with a simple letter to the Prime Minister. What does my colleague have to say about that?
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Madam Speaker, whenever we are spending taxpayers' money, as there is only one taxpayer in this country, we need to be careful. We need to be transparent. I agree with my colleague that it does not matter what decision we make; there are going to be people who are happy and people who are not happy.
We need to be very careful with taxpayers' money. It is hard-earned money. They work hard for their pay, and given the taxes we take from them, we need to work just as hard to make sure there are all sorts of checks and balances on how money is spent.
We need to support innovation. We have a great history of innovation in this country, with co-operation from our scientists, our academics and our private sector. We must hold those people accountable for what money they receive, how they got it and where they spend it. That is about the trust people have in a government.
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. In particular, he talked a lot about innovations in agriculture and how they have been born from the farm gate. Generally, farmers have led innovation because their livelihoods depend on it. They take care of the soil, take care of the water supply and take care of everything around them because that is in their best interests. Whether someone is a rancher or farmer, it does not matter what they are doing; they take care of the environment better than the government ever has or ever will.
I am wondering whether my colleague wants to talk about that point some more.
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Madam Speaker, to give an example, some people believe that the cattle industry should not exist, but cattle are a huge part of the environmental movement and keeping the environment and ecology of the Prairies whole. This was once done by buffaloes. The buffaloes are not there so the cattle have now replaced them. They are a strong part of it, and cattle people understand that. A lot of people in urban areas do not.
Another example in Saskatchewan is the air seeder. That was developed so someone does not have to continue to till the soil every time they turn it. The development of the air seeder has made such a difference in agriculture, and we can export that kind of knowledge everywhere. The member is right that agriculture has been part of a lot of environmental activities, and they have come from the farmers and ranchers themselves on the land.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague said something important. He said that we must be extremely careful with taxpayers' money. I agree. At the moment, however, I think that Conservative measures are wasting a great deal of taxpayers' money.
On the topic of saving money, the NDP decided to create a new dental insurance program that is saving people a lot of money, especially seniors and people who are vulnerable or poor. The other day, I spoke to a woman who went to the dentist and saved $2,900. That is a lot of money for someone living on $15,000 or $20,000 a year.
Is my colleague willing to commit to keeping the dental care program, especially for seniors?
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Madam Speaker, at one time I negotiated contracts and benefits for employees, but I negotiated a much better dental plan than the current government one. I have a problem because this particular plan is a single-payer plan. My concern, not as a regular senior but as a supersenior, is I understand—