Supersenior. A new category. That's why he gets new money: because he is a supersenior.
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.
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.
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
Supersenior. A new category. That's why he gets new money: because he is a supersenior.
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Madam Speaker, that means the old guys. The superseniors are the old ones.
The plans I negotiated for employees had much better dental plans. The fear is that under a single-payer system, seniors would lose the better plan. That is the concern I have.
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Madam Speaker, I am not a supersenior even though I just turned 60 years old a few weeks ago.
I am very pleased to take part in today's debate on transparency and the sound management of public funds. Let us not forget that just over 20 years ago, Canada was gripped by a scandal that still reverberates today and likely will for decades to come. Of course, I am talking about the infamous sponsorship scandal.
Thanks to the hard work and sharp instincts of journalist Daniel Leblanc and his whistle-blower, known as “MaChouette”, a shameful ploy employed by the Liberal Party of Canada was exposed. Instead of awarding real contracts, the sponsorship program became a mailbox where people could send cheques to themselves in order to launder that money for partisan political purposes. This was what sadly became known as the sponsorship scandal. This led to an inquiry commissioned by Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, a man who did the honourable thing by getting to the bottom of the matter. We know how that turned out. A total of $42 million of taxpayers' money was found to have been mismanaged by the heads of the sponsorship program, all to benefit the Liberal Party of Canada.
Twenty years later, we are witnessing another highly compromising situation for friends of the Liberal Party regime. I mentioned a $42‑million scandal just now, but what we are talking about today involves not $42 million, or $100 million, or $200 million, or $300 million, but $390,072,774 that was improperly awarded to friends of the regime. It is not me, a Conservative MP, saying that. It is the Auditor General who conducted an exhaustive study of the financial documents and concluded that over $390 million had been mismanaged.
This scandal began with a fund called the Sustainable Development Technology Canada fund, or SDTC. I am not a big fan of acronyms, but I may be using that one again. There were good intentions behind the creation of the fund in 2001. These stories always start with good intentions, but, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The problem is that sometimes people take shortcuts. That is what happened with the Sustainable Development Technology Canada fund, and it is absolutely scandalous. The fund was set up to distribute about $100 million of taxpayers' money every year to companies so they could develop new technologies to reduce their environmental footprint and pollution and help the environment. Unfortunately, it started off well but then veered drastically off course.
It was created by the Chrétien government in 2001. It continued under Harper's Conservative government and under the current government led by the member for Papineau. I would say his name, but I am not allowed. Some people say it is disrespectful to call the Prime Minister “the member for Papineau”, but the Prime Minister is only here because there are people in Papineau who voted for him. In a few months, it is likely that people from Ottawa-Carleton will elect the Prime Minister. He will still be the MP for Carleton. That is why we must always refer to the Prime Minister and any minister or House officer by their riding name, because without their riding, they would not be here.
Back to the main point. The program looked good, and it was off to a good start. In fact, the program was definitely well on its way and, for nearly two decades, it had fruitful results, funding things like high-tech solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and sustainable development technologies. It was created in 2001, as I said. In 2017, under the current Liberal government, the then auditor general conducted an investigation, an analysis, a study of this fund and gave it a very high passing grade.
It was off to a good start. It was good, and it was working. It worked until 2017. That is when the problems started. In 2019, the former minister of innovation, science and economic development, the Hon. Navdeep Bains, decided to appoint as head of this fund, as a member of its board of directors, someone who owned a company that was doing business with this fund. That is when the problems began. For years, the people managing the fund were not both clients and distributors, so they were not in a perpetual conflict of interest.
The former Liberal minister Navdeep Bains, a member of this Liberal government led by the member for Papineau, helped set the precedent that, unfortunately, went on for far too long. For the first time, the individual who was appointed president and CEO had a vested interest in this fund and was awarding herself contracts. Then, two more people were appointed. All in all, the Auditor General's investigation that I was talking about earlier found that this government had appointed nine directors to the board even though they were basically in a perpetual conflict of interest and their companies were receiving money from the fund.
Based on this information alone, the government should have immediately hit the brakes and stopped everything. Appointees should be independent of the fund, but they should know how to administer a fund. I will return to that a little later, but it raises a fundamental issue. People are not appointed to a board of directors to simply show up for meetings, cash their paycheque and walk out. They must be diligent and well versed in company management, but not the type to seek benefits for their own company. Unfortunately, more than nine board members had conflicts of interest.
In June 2019, Liberal minister Navdeep Bains appointed someone with a conflict of interest to the position of president and CEO. Others followed. I would be remiss not to mention the company Cycle Capital, whose chair was appointed to SDTC. In this specific case, the Auditor General's investigation found that approximately $250 million was mixed up in conflicts of interest.
Through the Auditor General's investigation, we also learned that the current Minister of Environment and Climate Change was once a lobbyist for that company, which in and of itself is completely fine. I have absolutely no problem with people working as lobbyists, as long as they do it right. Today, this man is the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. We are talking about nearly $250 million here. That is quite a lot of money, especially since the current minister consulted for the government 47 times a lobbyist. That casts doubt on the situation.
Then, there was a change of governance at the department when Mr. Bains announced that he was stepping down. As is his prerogative, the Prime Minister shuffled his cabinet and appointed the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, who, as we know, is an especially active guy for whom I have a lot of respect. Time will tell whether he makes any changes to his career. Let us say that a lot of people are watching him, myself included. This member became the minister responsible for the SDTC fund.
The first alarm bells went off publicly in September 2023. In a situation similar to that of “MaChouette”, who alerted journalist Daniel Leblanc to the sponsorship scandal, a whistle-blower decided to go public and tell the media how this fund was being mismanaged.
When he testified later, as part of the Auditor General's investigation, this whistle-blower said the following:
Again, 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.
He also said the following:
Just as I was always confident that the Auditor General would confirm the financial mismanagement at SDTC, I remain equally confident that the RCMP will substantiate the criminal activities that occurred within the organization.
...
I think the current government is more interested in protecting themselves and protecting the situation from being a public nightmare. They would rather protect wrongdoers and financial mismanagement than have to deal with a situation like SDTC in the public sphere.
It was a whistle-blower who said these things in his testimony. This had a direct impact on why we are currently debating this question of privilege.
The first reports were made public and the whistle-blowers were there. In November 2023 the Auditor General launched an investigation. In June 2024, the report was tabled. It is a scathing report on the mismanagement of this fund. Over the five years that were reviewed by the Auditor General, which cover the partisan appointment of Navdeep Bains, a total of 82% of the contracts were illegitimately awarded. This is not some minor oversight, where a few things here and there fell through the cracks. No, it was 82% of the time. Things were done improperly four out of five times. It was either a conflict of interest, or people circumvented the rules of governance, or money was sent directly to the individual's own company. It does not work like that. This happened four out of five times, in 82% of the cases.
Here is a breakdown of what we are talking about. Ten ineligible projects received $58,784,613. In 96 cases that added up to $259 million, conflict of interest policies were not followed. In 90 cases, conflict of interest policies were not followed, and there was no assurance that the terms and conditions of contribution agreements were respected. That is a total of $390,072,774. There are no cents in that total, and I have to say there is no sense in any of this. We are talking about $390 million, 82% of cases, mismanagement in four out of five projects, and conflicts of interest.
The report also makes the current minister look very bad. The Auditor General concluded that he did not engage in enough oversight over what was going on in the fund. The minister, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, keeps saying that he intervened as soon as he found out. I, a Conservative MP, am not the one saying that he did not do his job properly. The Auditor General is the one who found that he did not keep a close enough eye on what was going on. We are talking about $390 million. The sponsorship scandal was $42 million. That is a snapshot of the report's harsh condemnation of how poorly the fund was managed to the benefit of Liberal government cronies.
The Auditor General's investigation focused on management, not on potential criminal activity. As I referenced earlier, the whistle-blower was very clear during the meeting with the Auditor General. The Auditor General's job is to investigate management. It is up to the RCMP to determine whether criminal activities were involved. These are two completely different things. The whistle-blower was very clear that if the RCMP poked around a little, they would uncover criminal situations.
On June 10, the House adopted a motion so that documents could be sent to the RCMP. That is what we asked for and, unfortunately, that did not happen. Accordingly, when the House resumed its work, an order of the House was issued by the Chair requiring the government to produce the documents. That is what we want and that is why we need to get to the bottom of things.
A fund to protect the environment worked for 15-or-so years without any problem. When a new government arrived under the partisan auspices of the Liberal Party, things went off the rails. Four out of five projects were not processed correctly. What is more, $390 million of taxpayers' money was mismanaged. What is the result? The big losers are the companies that were counting on this money to do their work and truly serve this country by making investments in sustainable development technologies, as the name of this fund suggests. Ill-intentioned people across the way made sure this went completely off the rails. The first victims are the companies that want to invest in sustainable development technologies, in the environment.
In that regard, I would like to remind the House that, unlike what the Liberals have been saying ad nauseam, we, the Conservatives, are determined to tackle the challenges of climate change, which we recognize is real.
Just over a year ago, at the much-talked-about Conservative national convention in Quebec City, our leader, the member for Carleton, gave an important speech that is going to go down in Canadian history. In what we call the Quebec City speech, the member for Carleton described our vision for the environment, while recognizing that climate change is real and that we need to adapt to the effects of climate change. The ultimate objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. This government believes that it can achieve that objective by imposing taxes. We will achieve that objective by taking direct and meaningful action to reduce pollution and create a better environment. That is the Conservative approach. It has four pillars.
The first pillar involves tax incentives for new technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Companies emit greenhouse gases. They know why they are doing that, how they are doing it and how to reduce those emissions. The government will give them tax incentives to invest where they need to and where the problem is so that they can reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
The second pillar is giving a green light to green energy. Now more than ever, Canada needs wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, nuclear and solar power. We need to give these projects the green light, not put the brakes on them, which is exactly what Bill C‑69 does by requiring hydroelectric projects to undergo two environmental assessments. With us, it will be one project, one assessment. We need to speed up the process of implementing green energies.
The third pillar is the Canadian advantage. In Canada, we have all kinds of energy and all kinds of natural resources. To tackle climate change, we need to develop our Canadian potential. As long as we need fossil fuels, we will fight for Canadian fossil fuels. Some spout the fantasy that Canada will no longer produce oil; however, that will not reduce consumption, it will simply transfer production. Therefore, the big winner, if by some misfortune we stop producing oil in Canada, will not be Canada or the environment, it will be Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
The fourth pillar is obviously working hand in hand with first nations for development.
In closing, we are here today because the government refuses to comply with an order of the House. We are calling on the government to do the right thing, which is to comply with the House's order. Then we can find out what really went on. I began my remarks by talking about the $42-million sponsorship scandal. I would remind the House that we are now talking about a $390-million scandal. Speaking of the sponsorship scandal, we are still waiting for the Liberal Party to reimburse its dirty money.
Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Mr. Speaker, what a privilege it is to hear my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent share his point of view. My question is about the privilege. Many of the people who were appointed to the arm's-length board, in my opinion, should have thought it was a privilege, but the culture they are part of and that they have enjoyed in order to be able to line their pockets has to start somewhere. In my opinion, it starts at the top: a poisonous culture where there is no accountability.
What are my colleague's thoughts on that, and how do the people of his constituency of Louis-Saint-Laurent feel about the culture that the Liberal Party is part of?
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it starts at the top. When the Prime Minister, who has absolutely no respect for public money, spends without any control; when he has a problem with ethics issues, travelling all around the world without any problem with that and going to Christmas parties with some friends; when there is the WE Charity scandal, the ArriveCAN scandal and the SNC-Lavalin and Jody Wilson-Raybould scandal; and when coming from the top there is no respect for the rules of ethics, obviously there is impact elsewhere.
This is exactly what has happened since June 2019, when the hon. Navdeep Bains appointed someone who was directly in conflict of interest. During all his mandates over the next five years, nine people were directly implicated in a conflict of interest. One must not appoint someone who could have an issue of conflict of interest. The result was that 82%, four projects out of five, were not treated correctly.
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I really enjoy listening to my colleague when he rises to address the House. He is a great speaker.
On the main issue, what concerns me as a parliamentarian and a Canadian is that, with this request for documents, we run the risk of violating an extremely important principle, namely the separation between law enforcement and the government. In a democracy, that is an extremely important principle, a founding principle.
For the first time in history, what the Conservatives are asking for with this request for documents is access to documents, not only for parliamentarians to see, but also so that parliamentarians can hand them over to a third party, in this case the police. Does my colleague think this could set a dangerous precedent? Does this run counter to a fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy?
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to pay tribute the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. I really enjoy working with him. In fact, he chairs the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and twice a week we have a lot of fun working together. I would like to commend his contribution to public debate and what he has accomplished as a parliamentarian for a good 20 years, if I remember correctly.
As for the member's question, let me be clear with him. This is an order of the House. Is it setting a precedent? Yes, it is setting a precedent, but let us look at that precedent. It is hard to believe that, when three out of four parties think the same thing, there is a mistake. We do believe in moving forward. We are talking about a third party, but that is not a private company or someone who would profit from this. We are talking about the RCMP, which is run by serious people.
I want to remind my colleague that, yes, there was a time, unfortunately, when politics interfered with and intruded directly into the judicial process. It was not us or the House that did that. It was the Prime Minister himself, when he directly interfered in the SNC-Lavalin scandal.
The former justice minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould, had made her decision, and he called her into his office, not to the Liberal Party's office, but to the Prime Minister's Office. He told her that there was an election in Quebec and the Liberals had to win it. An assistant told her that the Liberals had to be re-elected.
Never before in history have we heard testimony with such serious consequences. We saw one person interfere directly in the judicial process. It was the Prime Minister. He should have immediately put a stop to it. He should have said that enough was enough, that they were in the office of the Prime Minister of Canada, not in the office of the leader of the Liberal Party, and he should have kicked them out, but no, he added insult to injury by saying unabashedly:
“We need to get re-elected.” Shame on the Prime Minister.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to ask my colleague from Louis‑Saint‑Laurent a question. A while ago, he criticized the Liberal government for being incapable of saying yes. I am going to give him a chance to say yes to a question that I think will come as no surprise to him.
To help seniors who are often struggling, living in poverty or grappling with inflation and the rising cost of living, we forced the Liberal government to introduce a new program that provides access to dental care and saves people money. Not only is it improving peoples' health, it is also helping them save more on their bills. We decided to let seniors be the first to benefit from the program because they need it the most.
Already, 240,622 Quebeckers have used the program. I am sure that many come from my colleague's riding. Can he commit today to keeping this program, which is important for seniors, if his party wins the next election?
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to correct something I said just a minute ago. I said the following:
“We need to get re-elected.”
I attributed that statement to the Prime Minister, but it was one of the Prime Minister's staffers who said it. Anyone can see that is appalling.
Having said that, I would respond to the member that we very clearly have the best interests of seniors at heart, always. We will continue to demonstrate that.
Something important happened in our parliamentary work today. The Bloc Québécois, which has been naively playing along for five weeks, finally realized that the Liberal government has absolutely no interest in advancing their files. Now, all Canadians are wondering if the New Democratic Party will follow through on the statement it made in August when it tore up its partnership agreement with the Liberal government. Will the NDP continue to be the Liberal Party's doormat, or will it stand up for all Canadians?
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the Bloc Québécois's ultimatum. It is October 29. When the leader of the Bloc Québécois mentioned this in question period earlier, my colleague's leader looked very happy. All the Conservative Party has to do is move a motion of non-confidence in this government and the Bloc Québécois will support it.
However, Parliament is paralyzed because of this question of privilege. The Conservative Party is preventing itself from moving a non-confidence motion. I am wondering what the Conservatives' strategy really is. Are they really prepared to trigger a carbon tax election, as they say every day here in the House? Why do they not do so by putting an end to this question of privilege?
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is the government, not the official opposition, that sets the agenda of the House. The government can put an opposition day on the agenda and allow a debate on the question. That is the reality.
Another thing that needs to be made clear is that, for five weeks, the Bloc Québécois believed in the Liberal government, believed in the Prime Minister. It placed its trust in this government twice during votes in the House. After nine years of Liberal governance, how could the Bloc place so much trust in this government? I say this with all due respect. It was naive and not very clever, because it did not lead to anything. Absolutely nothing was gained.
Of course, we are happy to see that the Bloc Québécois is now going to do its job as an opposition party, but again, we have to ask: Will the NDP stand by its decision to tear up the agreement in August?
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, I know the member who spoke has done a lot of great work on the environment file. I know he cares very much about the environment. When we look at this fund that we are debating here today, it operated smoothly across multiple governments up until the current government got elected and started meddling with it. Then we started to see conflicts of interest and to see Liberal insiders getting huge amounts of taxpayers' dollars funnelled into their companies, based on their own involvement on this board.
I am wondering just what level of shame these people would feel. I am wondering if my colleague has any thoughts on these people stealing from the taxpayers and also ruining a program that actually had done some fantastic work before.
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, the point is that when it is rotten at the top, obviously there will be an impact everywhere in the government's pyramid.
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to rise in the House to speak to the subamendment on the privilege motion moved by Conservatives to try to force the government to finally be transparent about the corruption it has allowed to run rampant, corruption which just happened to benefit its friends who it appointed to the board of Sustainable Development Technology Canada.
Time after time, we have seen the Liberal government fleecing taxpayers so it can enrich itself and its friends. It seems the only people in this country benefiting from the government's radical policies are Liberal insiders, who get to abuse Canadian taxpayer dollars without any oversight.
Every time we bring up the scandalous actions of these Liberal insiders, the government resists any attempts at holding them accountable or enacting any sort of consequences against them. Additionally, there is no initiative undertaken by the Liberal government to try to make up for these failures. There is no attempt to recoup the money these corrupt board members at SDTC funnelled to their own companies. In fact, all of the government's effort has been put into blocking Canadians from knowing the truth. It appears as though the whole purpose of SDTC was to just get as much money as possible out the door and into the businesses of well-connected Liberal insiders.
Yesterday, we saw the disdain these Liberal insiders hold for Canadians. When Conservatives have the audacity to hold them accountable and demand answers, they completely lose it. Yesterday at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the lawyer for Andrée-Lise Méthot, who is the founder and managing partner of Cycle Capital Management, actually began yelling at a Conservative member who was asking questions of his client. He seemed to think that to question her actions was unacceptable, despite her involvement in directing millions of dollars to businesses she had a vested interest in.
In fact, the meeting had to be suspended due to the disgusting behaviour and utter disrespect the lawyer showed to the committee. Even after being admonished by the chair during the suspension, he continued, if members can believe it, to make faces and wave his hands at another Conservative member while that member was asking questions. It is unsurprising that this is what it has come to with Liberal insiders treating parliamentary committees with such disdain when the government itself treats the House the exact same way.
What should Canadians think when they see these Liberal insiders can treat Parliament in such a way and still face no consequences from the corrupt government? It is obvious that Liberals and their friends believe that they supersede Parliament, that their abuse of taxpayers' dollars should not be questioned and that their actions are above reproach.
In fact, I am sure these Liberal insiders are confident in their actions because they used to employ the current radical Liberal environment minister, who was their lobbyist before becoming a Liberal MP and now minister. In fact, it came out through the course of this scandal that the environment minister still holds shares in a company that had special insider access to direct funding to businesses that it was invested in, a company that more than tripled in value since its co-founder was appointed to the SDTC board.
I suppose we should not be surprised that these connections have come to light, as it seems every other week a minister is connected to some scandal. This very minister is under scrutiny right now for his abject failure in his own department to manage the grants and contributions program at ECCC. Since 2018, over $4 billion has been given to Environment Canada for its grants and contributions funding. Now the department has failed an audit. The auditors found that there was a lack of documentation, a lack of oversight and an inability to show value for money or that what was paid for was actually received. Does that sound familiar? There was a lack of oversight of and a lack of value for money for over $4 billion, and in some instances, there was an inability to show that what was paid for was actually received.
This has become the common practice of the Liberal government. A lack of documentation, a lack of oversight and an inability to show value for money or that what was paid for was actually received have become synonymous with Liberal corruption. Suffice it to say that the department performed so poorly, the auditors warned that the management of funds was so sloppy that it represented “potential legal and reputational damage”.
The environment minister is happy to let the potential abuse of hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars within his department go unaddressed with no consequences. This is the sort of behaviour that is permissible by the government, by the cabinet. When his friends and former employees appear before committee, it is obvious that they feel they are entitled to treat Parliament with contempt. They know that their minister friend will do all that he can to stop Conservatives from holding them to account.
The attempted cover-up of the SDTC scandal, the refusal to hand over unredacted documents to the House and the insistence by the government that it should dictate to the House what information it can receive are indicative of the arrogance it governs with. Canadians are tired of this holier-than-thou attitude. They are tired of the Liberal corruption and are tired of the cover-ups. They are calling on the government to be transparent and to come clean about what it let happen at SDTC. Canadians are paying attention and want the documents to be turned over unredacted. As the Speaker has ruled, the government must do so.
Instead, the Liberals are desperately trying to cover up their corruption. Perhaps we will see them take this Speaker to court, just as they did with the last Speaker. However, if they really want to avoid turning over these documents, they could just call an election and see what Canadians think, but I digress.
With the subamendment, which was put forward by my colleague, the member for Flamborough—Glanbrook, and was seconded by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, we are seeking to add more witnesses to the amendment to appear at the procedure and House affairs committee. The subamendment seeks to add the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the former deputy secretary to the cabinet, Paul MacKinnon.
It should be noted that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada complied with the order from the House and did deposit all of the documents requested in an unredacted format. To all the Liberals who have been repeating the same talking point that the documents must be redacted to protect privacy, they may want to discuss this with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who sees no issue with turning over unredacted documents to the House.
The Liberals keep throwing up roadblocks to keep these documents secret so they can avoid any semblance of accountability. The real question here is this: What are they hiding? It is important that we hear from these witnesses to get the full picture of the extent of the cover-up the government is trying to orchestrate. This subamendment would change the amendment to read:
“provided that it be an instruction to the committee:
(a) that the following witnesses be ordered to appear before the committee separately for two hours each:
(i) the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry,
(ii) the Clerk of the Privy Council,
(iii) the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who respected the Order of the House and deposited unredacted documents,
(iv) Paul MacKinnon, the former Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet (Governance),
(v) the Auditor General of Canada,
(vi) the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,
(vii) the Deputy Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada,
(viii) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons,
(ix) the Acting President of Sustainable Development Technology Canada,
(x) a panel consisting of the Board of Sustainable Development Technology Canada; and
(b) that it report back to the House no later than Friday, November 22, 2024.
The subamendment is important, as it would allow the amendment to prescribe a list of witnesses the committee on procedure and House affairs should hear from to learn the full scope of the issue at hand. The importance of witness testimony in this matter cannot be overstated.
The scandal broke with the testimony of an SDTC whistle-blower. Looking back at that testimony, it is clear there is plenty more to uncover with the scandal. The whistle-blower said:
I think the Auditor General's investigation was more of a cursory review. I don't think the goal and mandate of the Auditor General's office is to actually look into criminality, so I'm not surprised by the fact that they haven't found anything criminal. They're not looking at intent. If their investigation was focused on intent, of course they would find the criminality.
The whistle-blower went on to say:
Just as I was always confident that the Auditor General would confirm the financial mismanagement at SDTC, I remain equally confident that the RCMP will substantiate the criminal activities that occurred within the organization.
It is clear that the investigation must continue and that the government must be forced to comply with the investigation and to turn over the unredacted documents. In fact, the whistle-blower even made a comment about the Minister of Industry's claim that there was no criminality. He said:
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.
The Minister of Industry may see no issues with SDTC board members' awarding millions of dollars to their own companies or to companies that they had investments in, but Canadians do. Canadians are outraged that at a time when two million people are using food banks every month and a time when people are struggling to afford housing, the government is letting its Liberal insider friends gorge themselves on taxpayer dollars. It allows them to enrich themselves on the back of Canadians, and then it shields the insiders from any consequences.
The Auditor General found that nearly $400 million was involved in cases of conflict of interest. We have heard that, but the minister would like everyone to just move on and to stop looking into the issue because he has moved the program under the responsibility of the National Research Council, which means there is nothing more to see here and there is nothing to be done.
The money the minister allowed Liberal insiders to take from Canadians is lost forever. Instead of trying to recoup the money, which was clearly awarded in instances of conflicts of interest, the Liberals just want to move on and forget that the issue ever happened. In fact, the minister does not even want an investigation to happen.
We would think that one of the first steps one would take in response to hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money being abused in this way would be for the RCMP to investigate what took place and assess whether a crime has been committed. However, the minister did not do that, because he does not want to throw his friends under the bus, especially at a time when he is likely to be looking for new employment in the next year.
This is not the first time Liberals have chosen their friends over Canadians, and we can assume it will not be the last. Whether we are talking about SDTC, ArriveCAN, McKinsey or any one of the other Liberal procurement scandals, there are clear patterns. In every one of them, there is always a severe lack of documentation. In fact the Auditor General said that the lack of documentation around ArriveCAN was the worst she had ever seen.
ArriveCAN is an application that started out with a price tag of $80,000, which then ballooned to $60 million that we actually know of. It is an application that, according to the Auditor General, we will never actually know the true cost of, given the lack of information available for her to do a proper audit.
It is deeply concerning to know that the Auditor General cannot even do her work. There is a complete lack of documentation, a lack of information available, as she is trying to demonstrate that taxpayers did in fact get good value for the money that was spent.
We also saw in these cases, many times, that there were specific companies that received special treatment because they just happened to have connections to the government or its top officials. In each case, we saw a similar reaction from the government. First, its members denied that there were any issues. Then, they tried to block any investigation from happening. Then, they refused to comply with the investigations by not turning over documents. When we finally got some answers and revealed their corruption, they wanted to move past it, chalk it up to lessons learned and move on. We are not willing to allow that to happen while taxpayers foot the bill for enriching Liberal insiders.
We believe that Canadians deserve answers, and they deserve a fulsome investigation into what has happened at SDTC. This is why we are here today. We continue to argue on behalf of Canadians and argue for their right to have their questions answered. That is why we continue to call on the Liberal government to hand over the unredacted documents and to pass this subamendment and the main motion, once it has been properly amended. We can then get to the bottom of this issue so that Parliament can move on to other work.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am actually confused about something after listening to the member's speech.
The member talked about the subamendment that we are currently on, which is to add more witnesses. She explained why the Conservatives wanted to add more witnesses, which is why we have a subamendment. However, other Conservatives have fully admitted that they do not want to vote for this motion at all, and they are refusing to vote for the motion until their demands are met. At that point, the motion would be moot.
I just do not understand why they would openly admit that they are against the motion and will refuse to let it go to committee but, at the same time, put forward a motion to add more witnesses when it gets to committee. Why even put forward a subamendment to add more witnesses if the Conservatives never even really had the intention of voting on anything? Is it just because a subamendment gave them the opportunity to reset the speaking order so that everybody could speak again? That is the way it looks to me.
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody on this side of the House has said that they are against the motion we put forward.
Conservatives are looking for transparency and accountability from the government, which continues to defy orders from committees, from the House and from the Speaker himself. The government refuses to hand over the documents, and we see how that went with the Winnipeg lab documents: It took the Speaker to court in order to avoid accountability.
The whole point of this debate is to highlight the government's infringement on the privilege of the House. Until the government rectifies this, we will have no resolution in this place.
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, earlier, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent called the Bloc Québécois naive. I wonder who is really naive.
The Conservatives are like an army of Gollums, obsessed with seizing their precious power. They are forcing the government to table documents, which we agreed on. However, unlike the Conservatives, who are not unanimous, we are unanimous on the fact that we are not going to sacrifice supply management or seniors. Our ultimatum, which was perfectly respectable and appropriate at the time, was our final attempt to save supply management and achieve something for seniors.
We are entering the third week of debate. The member claims that the government controls the agenda. Right now, the Conservatives are controlling the agenda. If they really want us to trigger an election, then they need to stop obstructing the House.
The Conservatives are the ones who are being naive if they do not realize that it suits the Liberals if they are not forced to prorogue, because they do not want an election. They are not being forced to take the blame for a prorogation.
I listened to the member who seemed to want the Liberals to call an election themselves. I am sorry, but in order for an election to be triggered, the opposition parties are going to have to force the government to call an election through a confidence vote.
Who is really being naive? Who is currently blocking the opportunity to trigger an election?
It is the Conservatives, who are filibustering their own question of privilege.
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, if my colleague really wants me to say who I believe is naive, I am going to say it is the member and his party. They had two opportunities to join us in voting non-confidence in the government.
I think it is pretty naive of them to think as they do about reaching the deadline they set, which looks like it will pass with none of the resolutions they were looking for. They are naive in believing that once we get through the business at hand, we will suddenly be able to go to an election. What he should be doing is talking to the NDP to find out whether it is going to join us and the Bloc in defeating the government.
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, my colleague opened her speech by telling us a story about what happened in committee with a witness when a lawyer who represented that person lost it on a Conservative member of the committee for simply asking some very basic questions. It is pretty clear what is happening here: Liberal insiders got caught with their hands in the cookie jar and the lid got slammed on them.
How many more Liberal insiders will have to get their hands slammed in the cookie jar before they learn that they cannot have open season on taxpayers' dollars?
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I do not think any of us could have imagined the number of scandals that one government would be involved in and that we would see a government working so hard to obstruct not only the work of the House but the work of committees.
The Liberal government has a pattern of trying to obstruct our work and of not handing over documents when committees are asking for them in order to do the important work that committees are supposed to do. The Liberals are also regularly supported by the NDP in this effort. We have seen it time and time again in the government operations committee. If we put this together with the government's continued refusal to comply with parliamentary orders, it shows the Liberals' complete lack of respect for this institution, parliamentarians and Canadians.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, for starters, to my colleagues in the Bloc who are now suddenly trying to suggest that the Conservatives are playing games and that the Bloc does not want to be debating this forever, I would suggest that we are open to negotiations around how to put an end to this. If the member would like to talk to his whip and have his whip talk to our whip, we certainly would be open to that idea. It is a bit rich for the Bloc members to somehow suggest it is completely the Conservatives' fault that we are in week four or five of this now, when they have just as much responsibility in this.
I am going to go back to the first question I had for the member, which she did not answer. She said, in answer to my question, that nobody on her side seems to be against the motion. With respect, that is not what I asked. I realize everybody is in favour of it.
My question, and I will put it very clearly, was this: Why put forward a subamendment to invite more people to PROC when the Conservatives know full well they are not interested in passing the motion to start with? Other Conservatives have said they would not vote in favour of it because there is only one thing they want, which is for us to comply with their demands.
The member has to answer my question. Why put forward this subamendment when the Conservatives are contradicting this by suggesting they have no interest in passing it in the first place?
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, it is really hard to follow the logic of this member. I find that often in this place.
We on this side of the House believe it is very important for Canadians to understand what is happening in this place when it comes to the Liberals' absolute disregard for parliamentary process, parliamentary privilege and complying with a parliamentary order. When we stand in this place and say, “No, you have to comply with the orders of the Speaker that have been put forward,” they just do not get it. They want to continue to do what they do without being held accountable or being transparent.
We are here to make sure the government is held accountable and is transparent. We will debate this until it does what it has been ordered to do, which is to provide the unredacted documents.
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that the current situation suits the Liberals, who do not have to take the blame for proroguing or for postponing opposition days, which would allow for a non-confidence motion to be moved. Yes, it is a disgrace that they have been refusing to table documents for three weeks. After three weeks, it is clear that they will not be tabling them. It is up to the people to decide what is right and what they want, and that will happen in an election, period.
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, I will simply point out that the member and his caucus had an opportunity to vote non-confidence in the government and did not. Now they are saying, three weeks later, that suddenly they have seen the light and really want the opportunity to vote non-confidence in the government. I would encourage him to talk to the members of the NDP caucus. We are ready. We are willing. He has a willing partner here. He should talk to the NDP.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take to my feet today to talk about one, maybe two Liberal scandals that have happened over the last nine years. Actually, there are probably 68 Liberal scandals that have happened over the past nine years under the government. In 2015, I remember a young, bright-eyed, beautiful-haired person running to be Prime Minister, and that person promised to lead the most open and accountable government in Canadian history. How far and how quickly we have fallen.
Today, we are debating the subamendment to the privilege motion concerning Sustainable Development Technology Canada, which was supposed to help people become more sustainable. A greener Canada is what this fund was supposed to be for. My colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle said it very well and very succinctly. He said that Liberals are going to liberal. I will unpack that. It means that it does not matter which generation it is or what iteration of Liberal people are, they are always going to enrich their friends. Liberal years are tough years for Canadians, but they are great years for Liberals.
I will go through a couple of examples. SDTC was a $380-million fund, and when it was audited by the Auditor General, she found 186 conflicts of interest. That is $380 million that the Liberals used to pork barrel and give to their friends and families.
I will have a few examples of this as I go through my presentation, but I would be remiss if I did not congratulate Premier Scott Moe and the Saskatchewan Party for once again returning a common-sense government to Saskatchewan. This is the fifth term for the Saskatchewan Party under premiers Wall and Moe. This has been done only two other times. It was done when Saskatchewan was first formed and had a Liberal premier for six terms and, when there used to be an NDP that stood for something, Tommy Douglas won five terms in Saskatchewan. Premier Moe and Premier Wall have tied Tommy Douglas in how many terms they have won consecutively. It is a great thing for my province.
I know lots of people put their names forward, and I will congratulate everyone who put their name on a lawn sign or a ballot. It is never an easy thing to do. There were candidates for the NDP, the Saskatchewan Party, the Sask United Party and the Buffalo Party. I congratulate everyone who put their name forward to take part in the election process. Some lose the election, but they always gain some experience and learn a few things.
Some friends of mine sought re-election. I want to congratulate Ken Cheveldayoff, who won in Saskatoon, and Blaine McLeod, who won in Lumsden-Morse. He is a great MLA as well. Lots of people have been returned to the legislature for the Saskatchewan Party, and I once again congratulate Premier Moe and his team for delivering a fifth term for the Saskatchewan Party.
We talk about scandals here, but in Saskatchewan, in 1982, Grant Devine ran against Allan Blakeney. History tends to repeat itself. There is a wonderful quote from Grant Devine when they were debating that sounds similar to the answers we sometimes get from some of the Liberal ministers. They were debating, and Allan Blakeney kept saying how great the government had it and how everything was going well for the government. There is one line in one particular debate when Grant Devine said that, if the province was so well off, why did they not have more money in their pockets? That is an interesting comment. Do members not feel that is happening right now in Canada?
The NDP-Liberals continue to say that Canadians have never had it so good, that Canadians are doing so well and that we have all these wonderful programs that they are paying for, which boggles my mind. The government does not pay for anything. The government does not have any money unless it takes it through taxes from businesses or people's paycheques. Therefore, it is not paying for anything.
Canadians, through their tax dollars, are paying for all the programs the NDP and the Liberals are foisting upon the people. They do not have a choice to pay their taxes, but when it comes to tax dollars, I say that a dollar in the pocket of the person who earned it is always better spent by them than by a government. That is something I will always believe.
I want to talk about the SDTC motion, some of the things that have gone on and where the money has gone.
Whenever we scratch the surface of Liberal-NDP spending, it seems like there is always a connection to, perhaps, a minister, like the Minister of International Trade. There are a lot of other examples, including the foreign affairs minister, whose spouse got quite a few grants from a few economic development funds. It is weird how there is always a familial connection to the people who are receiving grants from the government.
There have been a couple of other scandals over the last nine long years. We all remember the Aga Khan vacation scandal, the prison needle exchange program and the pressure put on the former justice minister to get Liberal donor SNC-Lavalin off the hook, with her being fired for not helping. I think we all remember Jody Wilson-Raybould and that she stood up for what was right, but the Prime Minister threw her right under the bus. We also remember Jane Philpott, who stood side by side with Jody Wilson-Raybould. She was also thrown under the bus by the feminist Prime Minister.
We also remember the WE Charity scandal, which is interesting because it caused the 2021 election. There was a prorogation too, which may be a bit of foreshadowing for the current scandal. With the WE Charity, the Liberals were once again caught giving money to well-connected friends. I think they used some of that money to help the Prime Minister's family with some travelling and a couple of grants to some brothers.
To get themselves out of that situation so that the House of Commons and committee could not dig deeper, there was a prorogation. Then what happened after the prorogation? The 2021 election was called. Around how many millions was that? It was about $600 million. The current scandal is only $380 million, so not quite as expensive as the WE Charity scandal, but the Liberals prorogued and called an election. Let us hope they follow that pattern, because I think Canadians are ready for a carbon tax election.
The list is so long that I might have lost my spot. Another scandal was giving hundreds of thousands of dollars in ventilator contracts to Liberal Party insider Frank Baylis. I think Frank got $25 million for that contract, which is interesting because he never even produced ventilators.
That leads me to another point about the SDTC scandal and the way Liberals spend money. During COVID, over $600 billion was spent, but $300 billion of that was not spent on any of the COVID programs. We would love to know at some point in time where the other $300 billion went that was supposed to help Canadians.
Here is another great line by the Prime Minister. Do members remember when he went on TV for a big, national press conference and said that the government will go into debt so Canadians do not have to? Does everyone remember that line? I wonder if the Prime Minister understands how government debt gets repaid.