House of Commons Hansard #350 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was liberals.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Madam Speaker, those comments were unbecoming of a member of Parliament, and the member should apologize and withdraw.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
The hon. member did answer me that they are allowed, even if not necessarily—
Sitting ResumedPrivilegeOrders of the Day
An hon. member
I didn't make the rule up. That is the rule we all follow.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
However, it is creating an incredible amount of disruption in the House, and I would invite all members to be very wise in the choice of expressions and words they use while trying to make speeches.
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. It has been asked by the Conservatives that both sides be treated the same. You have asked the member for Winnipeg North to withdraw the comment, and you repeated it to make him say it a second time. You have asked this member to, but I have not heard him do that yet.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
It was not an insult, per se. It was an accusation, but it was not an insult.
What did the hon. member for Waterloo ask me?
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
Madam Speaker, you had asked him to withdraw it, and then you had another point of order. Since you have already made that ask, it would only be suitable for members to respect the chair occupant and that he should withdraw—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
I did invite the hon. member to withdraw the kind of comments that provoke disruption in the House. That is how we judge if they should or should not be withdrawn. I would like the hon. member to make that effort so we can continue with the speeches.
The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB
Madam Speaker, we need to have some clarity on the language that is allowed or not allowed in the House. The hon. Liberal member—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
If I may answer the hon. member, the clarity that is used by the Chairs is, generally, if it causes disruption or not in the House. That is the way we judge, if we ask other members to withdraw comments that cause disruption.
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB
On that point, Madam Speaker, can you please clarify the language that you are deeming unparliamentary? I think it is critical right now that we get some clarity. The members on the other end who brought this up caused disruption—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
I did not call any language unparliamentary; I just said it caused disruption. There is a difference. I asked the hon. member to withdraw the comment because it caused disruption in the House. I did not say any language was unparliamentary.
The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.
Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Madam Speaker, I think what would be kind of ironic in all of that, as I stood here in the House to speak about this issue, it is not a point of order, it is on the debate itself, in 15 seconds—
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I certainly respect the rules, but to make a claim that I do not work for my constituents, I would say that would be a lie, but you would call that unacceptable. You have asked him to withdraw—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
We are starting into debate. I did make my point to the hon. member, and I did ask him to withdraw the comment that caused the disruption. Yes, I am trying to give him a chance to do it.
The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.
Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Madam Speaker, as you have said, after you realized and looked at the comments, and we can clarify with the Table, I did not say anything that was out of order. Again, from a disruption point of view—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
We will look at the Hansard, and we will come back to the House if necessary, but right now, we are going to continue debate.
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I am just seeking clarity on the application of rules. I was asked to withdraw a comment and I—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
We will come back.
The hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach.
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
On a point of order, Madam Speaker, if I may, I am seeking clarity on the application of the rules so that they are fair. Two weeks ago, I was asked to withdraw a comment; it was later ruled that I did not have to withdraw it. I was unrecognized for half of the day until the Chair came back and said they made a mistake, but I suffered the consequences. This member, you are saying, will not have to suffer a consequence on your order to withdraw—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
I did not say that. I said we will look at the Hansard and we will come back to the House, if necessary.
Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Madam Speaker, I will try again to stand here in the House and make my contribution to the privilege motion today regarding the government's $400-million corruption scandal.
More importantly, the government is so obsessed with denying the RCMP access to all the documents in this major corruption scandal that it is allowing the House to be paralyzed and seized with this issue because it will not provide the documents—
Judy Sgro Liberal Humber River—Black Creek, ON
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
This whole issue about the language being used in the House has been going on for three days. We have sat in this House, or wherever we are, listening to this: “corruption, corruption, corruption”. There are members who have talked about something disrupting the House and somebody having to respond to it in a bigger way. When there is continual talk about corruption, the way hon. members are doing, it smears every single one of us in the House.
I would suggest that those kinds of words should not be allowed in the House.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
We will definitely take it under advisement. I thank the hon. member.
The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.
Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Madam Speaker, I wish the Liberal member had the same furor and upset that she has about the use of the word “corruption” about having the government provide the RCMP with all of the information and all the documents that this democratically elected House has ordered it to provide.
In the past few days, millions of Canadians have watched the continued stonewalling and blocking by the Liberals. They wonder what price, exactly, the Liberals are willing to pay and why they are doing this, making it so the House has been seized with this issue. Let us make it very clear why we are here debating this motion of privilege. It is because the Liberals were ordered by the House, by a majority of members in this House. The Auditor General found that $400 million of taxpayers' money was given by Liberal insiders and appointees, in a very incestuous-type conflict of interest scheme they developed over the last number of years, to those who were not eligible or, in 186 cases of conflict of interest, they were giving themselves, where they sit on different boards, a bunch of money.
We said the RCMP is looking at criminal intent in this whole scandal. The RCMP deserves to have full access to all of the documents. The House spoke on June 10 and said the government must produce the documents and give them to the RCMP, so there is no question that the RCMP does not have all the information and all the documents it needs to see, and it can look at the case and determine what exactly is going on when it comes to criminal intent regarding $400 million of taxpayer money.
The fact that the Liberals are so worked up and still stonewalling with respect to providing this information, and that they will give up days of government business, shows us just how out of gas they are when it comes to their own priorities. After nine years, the Liberals are just tired and out of fresh ideas. The Liberals will have the House seized for days on end, making sure the pressure stays on them.
If there was nothing to see here, nothing to hide and no problem, a government with integrity that believes in sunny ways and says it is “open by default” would provide those documents. It makes us truly wonder what is behind the scenes. What has the RCMP not seen that either has not been given by the government or has been heavily redacted? It makes us wonder exactly why the Liberals are so desperate to bring the House to a standstill because they do not want to turn over something.
This is not pocket change, by the way. Today, I have been looking up the context of the magnitude of this latest Liberal scandal, and history is repeating itself. There are parallels with the sponsorship scandal that brought down the last Liberal government 20 years ago. There are incredible similarities and parallels here.
Let us think about this. The Liberal government of the day of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien created a federal fund to help promote the Government of Canada in Quebec after a close call in the 1995 referendum. It had to let Quebeckers know what the federal government was doing for them in Ottawa and for national unity, saying, “Yes, we have to do our part. We are proud to be Canadian. We have to have this fund and promote Canadian federalism and the Government of Canada.”
Well, what happened? Who benefited? It was Liberal insiders with millions of dollars in contracts for little to no work, all benefiting Liberal Party insiders and donors. The Gomery commission came in, and this defeated the last Liberal government. This is not denying the fact that a couple of million dollars of stolen taxpayer money, corrupt money, for little to no work is serious. It is.
However, here the Auditor General has found 186 cases of conflict of interest on money that was approved to those who were ineligible, and the total is not a couple million dollars in wrongful bad decisions, but $400 million. This was all in the name of green technology, the feel-good thing, “Oh it's green technology, we are helping the environment and doing all of these things”. They were helping Liberal insiders, and they got caught.
They hate the fact that we have to talk about this, because it reminds Canadians that things never change with the Liberals. They clearly did not learn from the sponsorship scandal. We can see from the corruption that happened in the last Liberal government, a major reason it was brought down, and what we are seeing here the expression that “Liberals are going to liberal”, which is really what it comes down to.
Here we are in the country today in a brutal economic situation. Housing costs have doubled. The Liberals have doubled our national debt more than any other prime minister and government combined in Canadian history. They have a carbon tax that is driving up the price of gas, the price of food and the price to heat our homes. Two million visits are made to food banks every month in this country. There were 24 million visits to food banks in Canada in 2024. Forty-seven thousand people have died from opioid-related deaths in this country. More people have now died, under the Liberals' watch in the last nine years, from opioids alone, and their failed approach when it comes to so-called safe supply and tax-paid funded drugs, a lack of rehab and treatment options for people to have redemption and a second chance at life, than all Canadians in the Second World War; that is the magnitude.
However, with all of those issues combined, what are the Liberals obsessed with? It is not coming up with another idea; every one they have had the last nine years has made things worse. They are obsessed with stonewalling, denying accountability and allowing the RCMP to have full access on this massive, multi-hundred-million-dollar scandal and corruption that is going on.
I am sorry if a Liberal member gets upset with me using the word “corruption”, if that is their issue or what triggers them, but this is $400 million by Liberals appointed by this Liberal government itself. The Liberals appointed these people, and when they got caught and the whistle-blowers started coming forward, they still did not get it. They are still trying to protect the insiders and all of those who stole taxpayers' money, and who were ineligible to receive it.
Another note that is important in this debate for all Canadians to know is that the Liberals say they are looking at it and are coming up with a process to review it, but it has been years now since whistle-blowers came forward. How much of that money has come back to the Canadian treasury? Not a penny; not a dollar. Out of 186 cases, with resignations all over the place, an Auditor General's report and the RCMP confirming that it is under investigation, not a single dollar has been returned to the treasury, which is absurd and tells us everything we need to know after nine years.
I want to share a couple of things here tonight in my contribution to this debate. I think one of the things that we need to understand is the depth and magnitude of the conflicts of interest that were outlined on this situation, verified and confirmed by the independent Auditor General of Canada in the scathing report that we saw. Members can picture this, because this is literally what happened.
The Liberals appointed members to the board of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, SDTC. They put their own members on a board of directors, and they got a bunch of applications in. However, this is 101 of ethics and 101 of conflict of interest. I served in municipal politics, and a declaration of pecuniary interests started off every meeting. We, as members of Parliament, have the Ethics Commissioner. We do our disclosures and our filings, as do members of cabinet, with one under investigation for breaching this because we cannot find the other Randy, but I will put that aside.
We know that if we are involved in or are making a decision on something that gives us a financial benefit, we have to say that we have a conflict of interest. We have to leave the room, we cannot be involved and we cannot sway that decision. We had appointees around a table and they were voting on giving themselves and their own businesses money on multiple occasions, with government officials there overseeing all of this.
A few brave whistle-blowers came by and blew the whistle on all of this. We see the list produced in one of the exhibits in the Auditor General's report, with directors' names that were on the board and the millions of dollars. They are a member of a company, they are a director on the board and they approve funding of $100,000, $5 million, $1.9 million, $4 million, $5.3 million, $2 million, $4.2 million, 186 times. One of the basics of being on a board is understanding governance and conflict of interest. It was not as if it were a couple of times we did it, nothing to see here, that it was an innocent mistake, because 186 times, $400 million, is not an accident.
That is why the RCMP needs to have full access to all the documents with no redactions. The House did not say that redactions were allowed. The House did not say to hand over whatever documents they think we might want to see. The irony of all of this is that there is a conflict of interest in this case of conflict of interest. The government under investigation for appointing Liberal insiders to the board is saying that it is going to redact this and that, that maybe we do not need this document and that it is not really sure if we do. It gets to decide.
I cannot say the number of times that I have now spoken in the House and at PROC committee about this. This is like the accused getting to tell the jury members what evidence they get and do not get to see. The government is in a conflict of interest situation. It is under investigation and it gets to be the referee and arbiter of what investigators of the RCMP get to see.
What the House said on June 10 was that the government does not get to decide. Give them everything. Let them have full access to make the determination whether there is criminal intent here. Do not buy it for a second, because I have heard this in the last couple of days: the Liberals said that the Auditor General looked at it, and yes, found some conflicts of interest and some wrongdoing, and that they are trying to get the money back, although no money has been returned yet. They will not give an update. I asked at committee a couple of months ago how much it is thinking about getting back. How many have they reached out to? There is no answer, not a dollar, not an update, nothing.
They are saying that they are going to look after it and to not worry about it, that the Auditor General said there is no criminal intent there. The Auditor General's mandate was not to examine criminal intent; it is the job of the RCMP to do that.
As a Conservative member of Parliament, as a member of Parliament, as a Canadian who is sick and tired of the stonewalling and the waste and Liberal insiders getting ahead as it gets worse off for Canadians, it is tiring. It is tiring to have to keep telling the government to open up the books, to open up the access to law enforcement to investigate and get to the bottom of this. Liberals did not learn 20 years ago in the sponsorship scandal. We are seeing on full display here today, by their laughing and their ridicule at the beginning of my speech, that they still do not take the waste and misuse of taxpayers' money seriously at all. It is shameful. The longer they stonewall and evade accountability, the shorter the runway is getting.
Canadians are going to have their say in a carbon tax election. I would love for that to kick off tonight, tomorrow, the next day or so. We tried within the last couple of weeks. In the course of the last while, it is getting more intense. When I talk to folks in my part of eastern Ontario, and I have visited parts of the GTA and many parts of this great country, people are asking when we are going to have an election, to have a say. They evade that as well.
The Liberals are claiming all the wonderful things they are doing, how great life is, how the carbon tax is no problem and it does not matter and that people insist they want it quadrupled, yet they will not have an election to let Canadians weigh in on it.
After $400 million has been confirmed as being misused and misappropriated, a circle of Liberal insiders approved money to each other back and forth, and years after whistle-blowers came forward, not a dollar of taxpayer money has been returned.
All we are saying is to let the RCMP fully investigate so it can give an answer to Canadians. If charges of criminal intent are there, it can go through the judicial process. The fact is that we are sitting here and the Liberals are so desperate to avoid that. They will allow this debate to continue for the simple reason that they just will not provide the accountability and the documents.
After nine years, after the endless scandals, the endless ethics investigations and convictions, including of the Prime Minister twice, Canadians have had enough. What could end this is just providing the documents. If there is nothing to hide, if there is no criminal intent, if the Liberals did nothing wrong, they should give the RCMP the documents and it will prove that. The government just shrugs because it has been a week without having government business by the NDP-Liberal government. It does not even care right now. It would rather have it highlighted over and again. It is stonewalling accountability. The AG has looked at it. It is time for the—