Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to the Speaker's ruling regarding the Liberal government's refusal to comply with a binding House order to produce documents related to Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or better known to Canadians as the Liberal green slush fund.
It is like Groundhog Day here in Parliament. We are once again debating another Liberal scandal instead of legislation, but the Liberals have done this to themselves. They are clearly trying to hide the details of yet more corruption. I have a prediction: These documents will eventually prove that the Liberals have wasted taxpayer money and helped their friends. Why else would they go to such great lengths to keep them so secret?
It is simply astounding and, frankly, infuriating to me and to the people I represent that the Liberal government has become so complacent and so careless that it is willing to let millions of tax dollars be wasted and does not even want an investigation into how or why. We are not just talking about numbers on a balance sheet here; we are talking about the hard-earned tax dollars of everyday Canadians. It is reasonable for them to loathe the waste and corruption they have seen under the Liberal government.
The sheer audacity of the Prime Minister to sidestep a binding House order and to cloak himself in secrecy is nothing short of outrageous. Make no mistake, his stonewalling is not just irresponsible; it is a betrayal of the trust of the very people he, and everyone in this place, was elected to serve. We owe it to Canadians to demand answers, to hold the Prime Minister accountable and to ensure taxpayer money is not being funnelled into the hands of his friends, Liberal insiders.
To demonstrate why we must find the Liberal government in breach of parliamentary privilege by ignoring the will of this House, we must examine the pattern of appalling evasion and secrecy habits from the government. As a bit of a refresher on previous Liberal failures to be open and transparent, beyond the matter before us, let us not forget the SNC-Lavalin scandal. This was when the Prime Ministerdecided to fire Jody Wilson-Raybould for refusing to go along with his nefarious plan to change the law to protect himself and, of course, his friends. The Prime Minister was then repeatedly asked to waive cabinet confidence to let Ms. Wilson-Raybould speak, and he refused time and time again. He did everything he could to make sure that no one, including and especially the RCMP, could even get access to evidence to properly investigate the matter.
Now, let us fast-forward to the Winnipeg lab documents the Prime Minister refused to hand over, once again defying the will of Parliament in the process. When the previous Speaker ruled that he and his government must hand over the documents, the Speaker said:
The [powers] in question, like all those enjoyed by the House collectively and by members individually, are essential to the performance of their duties. The House has the power, and indeed the duty, to reaffirm them when obstruction or interference impedes its deliberations. As guardian of these rights and privileges, that is precisely what the House has asked me to do today by ordering the Speaker to reprimand you for the Public Health Agency of Canada's contempt in refusing to submit the required documents.
This all sounds a little familiar to today's debate, of course. What did the Prime Minister do in that instance? He was callous enough to let the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada take the fall. It was cruel that he decided to make a public servant take the fall for his failures of leadership and his own political objectives. A long time ago, it feels like forever, nine long, miserable years ago or so, the Liberal Prime Minister promised that government would be open by default. I do not know if the Prime Minister believed himself then, or if he just drank too much of his own Kool-Aid, but his record does not match that empty rhetoric.
In politics, we should not be judged by our words; we should be measured against our actions. Words are cheap, and without following through, they are not worth anything. I do not blame Canadians for being upset with the Prime Minister, not just for this scandal but broadly speaking, because he is anything but open and transparent. The fact we are here debating this again today is yet another proof point of that.
However, the reason this motion is so important is that it transcends mere procedural oversight. It speaks directly to the integrity of our democracy and the accountability we owe to the people each one of us represents in this place. This issue is not just about a handful of documents. It reflects a broader principle of good government, one that is essential for maintaining public trust, something the Prime Minister lost some time ago.
Let us revisit the timeline and the facts that have brought us here today. On June 10, the House passed a motion demanding specific documents that are critical to our oversight of government operations. We set a reasonable deadline of 30 days to comply, yet what followed was far from satisfactory. It was extremely disappointing, but perhaps not surprising given the Liberals' track record. The reports submitted to the Speaker by the law clerk indicated partial disclosures and numerous redactions. In some cases, we faced outright refusal from various government departments. This is not merely a technical breach. It constitutes a dismissal of Parliament's authority. The actions of the Liberal government convey the troubling message that it simply prioritizes convenience over accountability. This is not how government is meant to function.
Let us take a moment to reflect on the importance of parliamentary privilege. The Speaker has in the past noted the absolute nature of the powers to order the production of documents. This is no trivial matter; it is a cornerstone of our democratic process. Parliamentary privilege allows us to demand transparency, ensuring that the government is held accountable to the people it serves or, at least, should serve. This House has the unequivocal right to request any information necessary for us to fulfill those parliamentary duties.
The Prime Minister must recognize that he is not above the rules that govern this place because it operates under the scrutiny of the House and, by extension, the very people of Canada we are here to represent. To stress that point, let us reflect on some historical precedents. Speaker Milliken affirmed the House's unwavering right to order the production of documents, asserting that no exceptions should be made for any category of government documents. This principle is enshrined in our procedural traditions and underscores the fundamental duty of Parliament to oversee the actions of the government of the day.
As for why we are taking this somewhat extraordinary step, it is because what we uncovered regarding this green slush fund scandal is nothing short of appalling. It directly undermines the fundamental tenet of responsible governance: that taxpayer dollars should be directed toward their intended purposes and, better yet, they should achieve outcomes of those purposes. We discovered that the Liberals appointed a board of directors with individuals closely aligned with Liberal interests and with deep-seated conflicts of interest. This board then made decisions that funnelled taxpayer money to companies that, as the Auditor General pointed out, have no verifiable environmental benefits. The Liberal government has tried to spin a yarn about how this was using tax dollars on green projects; instead, it was mired with conflicts of interest and ineligible project applications.
I want to extend my sincere gratitude to my many hard-working Conservative colleagues, particularly the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, who have dedicated countless hours to find the truth. They have done exemplary work on behalf of Canadians by digging deep to get to the bottom of this mess. The member for South Shore—St. Margarets exposed this green slush fund for what it truly was, a mechanism for companies to cash in for projects that were not even eligible or simply to enrich themselves.
I am particularly troubled by the notion of the board of directors allocating taxpayer money to companies in which they have a vested interest. This is a profound betrayal of the public trust. This is why this production order is so critical and why the government's defiance of such a serious breach of parliamentary privilege is so appalling. In my view, it is imperative that any member of this House who has any desire for accountability must support this motion.
For those watching at home, I will give a rundown of how we got here. Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, was not always this body engulfed in scandal and corruption. In fact, it was started back in 2001 with the purpose of funding companies that create technologies promoting sustainable development; this is not a bad idea. In its intended form, SDTC is an arm's-length and not-for-profit organization. However, it all changed with the Liberal government, which transformed it into anything but that. SDTC has a board of directors that oversees payments from the fund.
Jim Balsillie, the former co-CEO of BlackBerry, became the chair of this board back in 2013. He served in that capacity for several years, that is, until one day, the then Liberal industry minister expressed concerns because Balsillie was critical of the Liberal government. So they did what Liberals do and searched for a friendly face to take on the role, ultimately settling on Annette Verschuren in June 2019.
That is when the problems really started. Ms. Verschuren had received SDTC funding, which made her the only chair in the fund's history to have interests in a company receiving money from the organization. The minister, the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister's bureaucratic department, were warned of the risks with her appointment, yet they went ahead anyway. Ms. Verschuren went on to normalize an environment where conflicts of interest thrived. Simply put, the board of directors would award funding to companies in which they held financial interests. They enriched themselves at the expense of hard-working, taxpaying Canadians.
The examples are incredibly damning, so let me just mention a few. Stephen Kukucha, a former Liberal political staffer, served as a director for some time. During his tenure, companies he had a financial interest in received nearly $5 million in SDTC funding. Guy Ouimet, another director, admitted that companies he had a financial interest in received about $17 million in SDTC funding.
These numbers are not exactly chump change, but they pale in comparison to the story of Andrée-Lise Méthot. Ms. Méthot owns Cycle Capital, a firm that apparently invests in green technologies. During her time on the board, $114 million in SDTC grants were given to companies she had a financial interest in. That was just during the time she was on the board. When we combine what the companies she had invested in received both before and during that time, the total was $250 million.
I would like to say it stops there, but it actually gets a little worse. Before he was focused on driving our economy into the ground, the radical Minister of Environment was a so-called strategic adviser for none other than Cycle Capital. During his 10 years there, millions went from Liberal coffers to that firm. In fact, I understand he still owns shares in the company but refuses to tell us how much they have increased in value. My theory is that they have increased a lot, because he is apparently rich enough not to worry about the economic vandalism he and his government are doing to Canadians. He must be buffered from those challenges.
Regardless, the corruption was too great. The gravy train had to end at some point. In late 2022, whistle-blowers raised concerns about corruption at SDTC. Later in 2023, they went public with those concerns, sounding the alarm about unethical practices at the organization.
That November, the Auditor General announced that an audit of SDTC would be completed. The report released in June 2024 was damning, to say the least. The Auditor General found 186 conflicts of interest. Not one, not two, not a few, but 186. Who in their right mind would think this is acceptable? I do not care what one's political stripe is; nobody would find that acceptable. To fight back against any investigation into that is simply appalling. Of the sample of contracts investigated by the Auditor General, it turns out $390 million in contracts was inappropriately awarded.
For many years, it was a good time to be a Liberal insider, until these dastardly whistle-blowers emerged. It turns out, time is up. The most damning testimony came from these whistle-blowers. Let me read a few quotes. One reads:
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.
Another reads, “The true failure of the situation stands at the feet of our current government, whose decision to protect wrongdoers and cover up their findings over the last 12 months is a serious indictment of how our democratic systems and institutions are being corrupted by political interference.”
I will pause to give everyone a chance to reflect on those statements. If they do not drive home the problem, I do not know what will.
Recognizing this, the House decided to pass a motion on June 10 that called on the Liberal government to provide to the House documents pertaining to SDTC. It included provisions for the documents to then be provided to the RCMP so that it could undertake a criminal investigation on whether criminal offences were committed. This last piece is important, since the Auditor General conducted a governance audit, not a criminal investigation.
What did the government do in response? It is a reasonable question. It did not do what it was supposed to do, of course. It delayed and deflected so long that it forced the Speaker of the House to rule that the government violated the privileges of the institution and its members. That, simply put, is the story of how the Liberals transformed an arm's-length, not-for-profit organization into a money grab for Liberal insiders.
We all know the saying that sunlight is the best disinfectant. The Prime Minister used to crow about this all the time, but as of late, I would not dare him to say it publicly because it would not be taken seriously. Like many of the Prime Minister's promises, this one, of course, has faded into the distance.
It has taken immense effort from a parliamentary committee and now a production order from the House of Commons for the government to comply with our request for basic documentation about these payments. This should have been a straightforward process. These documents do not require a motion to obtain. Departments ought to proactively disclose such information or at least readily provide it upon request. A government intent on transparency would have no qualms about sharing this information, but that is not the Liberal government.
Consider this: The government has consumed valuable legislative time forcing us to extract information that it could have disclosed at the outset. Instead of coming forward with the necessary documentation when initial concerns arose, the Liberals chose to conceal it intentionally, wasting time and resources that could have been better spent, I think, in the eyes of every Canadian. The ongoing redactions and the refusal to release certain documents speak volumes about the abilities of the government. These are not the actions of a government with nothing to hide.
We are merely asking the government to hand these documents over to the law clerk, who can then forward them to the RCMP if necessary. If, as we suspect, wrongdoing and illegality occurred, we owe it to the Canadian taxpayers, who have seen their money wasted, to pursue the truth.
I fully support the proposal to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This committee can delve deeper and examine what documents remain outstanding, what has been withheld and, crucially, hold those accountable for any misappropriated tax dollars. I urge all members to support this course of action, because we need to send a strong message to the Liberal government that we will not be intimidated by its underhanded tactics or its secrecy.
I am not daunted or apprehensive about taking the Liberals on. This is exactly what I am doing at the environment committee right now, as we start the process of investigating the Liberals' net zero accelerator fund, which is worth $8 billion, far more than the green slush fund that we are talking about today. The environment committee has passed numerous motions to get its hands on the contracts the Liberals signed, and we will do whatever is necessary to get to the bottom of that quagmire. Based on the Liberals' track record, I would not be surprised if we see ourselves back here for a failure to deliver those contracts.
It is vital that we remember who as members of Parliament we serve. Each of us has a duty to our constituents to ensure that the government is spending their hard-earned money appropriately, that it is not being wasted or misspent and that it is going toward its intended purpose, not to the pockets of Liberal insiders and those who simply know how to game the system. This is more than just documents. This is about accountability and our democracy, and those who do wrong must be brought to justice.
I encourage all members, particularly my Liberal colleagues, whom I know this will be rather difficult for, to stand up for what is right, because their voters elected them for the same reason that mine elected me: They want members to do the right thing. They want them to vote for this motion to provide a bit of disinfectant and sunlight to this information. When it matters most, it is time to stand up.
