Madam Speaker, I am both pleased and displeased to take part in this debate. I am pleased because the people of Louis‑Saint‑Laurent gave me a mandate to be here in the House to defend them. Therefore, every time I rise here, I think first and foremost of those who gave me that mandate, but I am also seeking to ensure that public funds are managed fairly, transparently and consistently, and above all, to hold the government to account.
Indeed, that is the problem. We are rising today because, for the umpteenth time, this government is having ethics issues, even corruption issues. Worse still, the government is defying an order of the House.
I will quickly lay out the case. On June 10, we submitted a request for the RCMP to gain access to documents concerning a financial scandal. On September 26, the Speaker ruled that since the documents requested had not been properly tabled, the organization had to make the information public.
Here we are again in a situation where an order of the House and the will of parliamentarians are being challenged. The public service is not producing the documents, and it has the full support and backing of the government. What are we talking about? We are talking about a green fund to improve the quality of the air, the quality of life and the quality of the environment in Canada. In that respect, the Sustainable Development Technology Canada fund, or SDTC, clearly has very good objectives.
The fund allocates $100 million a year to companies as long as they invest it to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution for all Canadians and improve the quality of the environment. We have no problem with that. When we were in government, we supported that project. The then auditor general audited this Crown corporation in 2017 and gave it a clean bill of health. There were no issues. Unfortunately, people were appointed under this government, and that is when the issues really started.
We are talking about ethical problems. The government appointed managers and members of the board of directors. Through SDTC, these people were giving their own businesses subsidies. This is obviously a conflict of interest. Some might say that they could have left, but that would have been called a revolving door. Had they left the board of directors during a vote, we would have been talking about revolving doors rather than empty chairs, because there were so many of them. Ultimately, if the chairs are empty, perhaps we should fill them with people who are not in a position of conflict of interest.
Unfortunately, this is what was happening for years. It was a modus operandi. When a person is not too sure about something, but they get away with it the first time, the second time and even the tenth time, then it becomes the norm. Unfortunately, that is what we have seen.
First, an anonymous whistle-blower informed the media of problems at SDTC. Immediately, we began asking questions and we brought up the major ethical issues within that organization in the House. We dug a little deeper, talked to people, obtained information, asked questions and did our job as parliamentarians, which led the Auditor General to conduct a proper audit.
She combed through all the contracts awarded through the lens of how public funds were managed. We are not talking about criminal activity here. The Auditor General's job was to ensure that the money was managed properly. There was no question of a police investigation at the time. It was simply a financial matter. The Auditor General's findings were terrible for this government, for that organization and for the people who were appointed by this government.
In all, we are talking about 186 situations of direct conflict of interest. We are talking about nearly $400 million of taxpayer money that was not managed properly. That is a lot of money. Let us get into the details of what this might look like. We are talking about $58 million that was allocated to 10 ineligible projects, some of which could not even demonstrate an environmental benefit or the development of green technology.
For the past two years, I have had the privilege of being a member of the shadow cabinet. Our leader, the member for Carleton, the leader of the official opposition, honoured me with his confidence by appointing me the shadow minister of the environment and climate change, a position I am very happy with. I have met around 400 environmental groups since I have been here. I am no better than anyone else. I do my job. It is my job to meet people, as it certainly is the case for the Speaker. There is a reason she has been here for some time now. I do not want to be ageist, but it is due to her merits, which is to her credit. As for me, I have been here for 16 years and there is a good reason for that, too.
I was saying that I meet with a lot of environmental groups. I always ask them what they could have done with $58 million for projects that produce results instead of projects of no demonstrable benefit to the environment or green technology development. They could do a lot with that money. When I want to twist the knife a little more, I tell them about the Volkswagen project in Ontario. I ask them what they could have done to save the planet with the $18 billion that was given away to a multinational corporation. They came up with quite a few good ideas.
Getting back to the case of SDTC, $58 million was awarded to 10 ineligible projects, and $334 million was divvied up in 186 cases to projects in which board members held a conflict of interest. That is exactly what not to do. Some will say that it takes people who know how environmental businesses operate to make decisions about environmental businesses. The instinct is then to pick people from environmental companies, but that is a mistake. That is not how it works, because naturally, an approach like that puts these people in a conflict of interest. That is what the government failed or refused to understand when it appointed these people.
I doubt anyone wakes up in the morning and decides they are going to defraud the system. I tend to assume that people are acting in good faith. It is a bit like what I was saying earlier. The first time, the person might hesitate, but they get away with it. They may do it another 10 times and still not be sure, but they get away with it again. After 186 times, they still may not be sure, but they keep getting away with it.
That is why the people appointed to a board of directors should not be placeholders, as they are called in the industry. Those who know a little about the world of public administration know that there are quite a few placeholders on boards of directors. This is also true in the world of private administration. People say they are so proud to be appointed to the board of such-and-such a company. They go to meetings two or three times a month. If they are placeholder directors, they spend the required amount of time sitting on a committee and then leave. However, others do a really good job.
I recently met a businessperson who told me that he was very impressed with another businessperson who was a member of his board of directors. He told me that every time that person asked a question it was a “killer question” because it was not easy. Those are people who were appointed based on their skills and their independence, and who are able to make effective decisions that benefit everyone. It is clear that is not what happened at SDTC where they appointed people who were clearly in permanent situations of conflict of interest. The thing to do in that case would be to appoint different people.
Thousands of Canadians know how to run businesses. Institutions, universities train people to do that. A colleague was talking to me about that recently. He told me that he took a course to be a director of a company. Yes, there is a course for that. Yes, people go to school for that. Yes, there is a diploma for that. There are thousands of Canadians who are ready to do this service for the government and who will not be in perpetual conflict of interest, as we have seen.
We are talking about $58 million that was allocated to projects that did not meet the terms of the contribution agreement. Meanwhile, a public servant said in a telephone call that this was complete incompetence on the part of this government. What is more, in her report, the Auditor General did not go easy on the current Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. She said that he did not sufficiently monitor compliance with the contribution agreements, and we know how that turned out.
That is how we ended up in this mess. Why are we talking about it in the House today? It is because of the issue of documents. As I said in my introduction, we moved a motion that was adopted by a majority here in the House, with the support and assistance of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. We are very happy about that. We thank them, of course, on behalf of Canadians. A majority of members in the House are demanding that we get to the bottom of this and allow the RCMP to put this organization under police scrutiny to determine exactly what is going on.
Why are we going to such lengths? Of course, it is not easy, but at the same time, it has to be done, because the person who blew the whistle on this situation internally said the following when he appeared before a parliamentary committee:
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.
Later on, he said:
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. It should never have taken two years for the issues to reach this point. What should have been a straightforward process turned into a bureaucratic nightmare that allowed SDTC to continue wasting millions of dollars and abusing countless employees over the last year.... 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 RCMP needs access to all the documents to be able to conduct the investigation. The whistle-blower says that the Auditor General of Canada did not have the mandate to look into criminality, but that if the RCMP conducted a criminal investigation, it would find something. It is not me, the Conservative Party or the opposition members saying that, it is the person who blew the whistle on this scandal that, unfortunately, is tarnishing our country's reputation once again.
We must take action. Let us not forget a very significant quote from the former president and CEO of SDTC, who told the Standing Committee on Technology and Science:
My employee in the government relations lead told the minister's office. Yes, I expressed concern, and I did it at multiple levels. That's my duty, and that's what I did. When the minister then decides to not accept that advice, I have to accept that too.
It is false to claim, as the government did, that it took measures as soon as it was informed. No. The Auditor General says that the current minister did not act as quickly as one would expect from a steward of public funds.
That is why, today, we are asking for the documents so that the RCMP can do its job. In fact, the Speaker was very clear in his ruling on September 26, in which he agreed with the request made by the official opposition, with the support and assistance of the other opposition groups. I quote:
The procedural precedents and authorities are abundantly clear. The House has the undoubted right to order the production of any and all documents from any entity or individual it deems necessary to carry out its duties. Moreover, these powers are a settled matter....To lend support to the absolute nature of the power to order the production of documents, the House leader of the official opposition relied on the ruling on a question of privilege of April 27, 2010, from Speaker Milliken, centring on the House's right to order documents. He stated in the Debates, at page 2043, the following: “procedural authorities are categorical in repeatedly asserting the powers of the House in ordering the production of documents. No exceptions are made for any category of government documents”.
That is where we are right now. We are enforcing the procedure and enforcing our rights and privileges as parliamentarians. We are doing our job. We want to get to the bottom of things, and in order to get to the bottom of things, the RCMP needs access to these documents. That is the point of the proposal, which was supported by the majority of the House. Unfortunately, the government failed to comply and was called to order by the Speaker's ruling of September 26.
This brings back some rather powerful memories for me. I was at the centre of the action when these events occurred. This is not the first time that an entity has sought to withhold documents on a sensitive issue. We all recall the very murky story of the Winnipeg lab. I remember it quite well, because at that time, I had the great privilege, honour and pleasure of being the House leader of the official opposition. The extraordinarily clever and amiable team at the office of the House leader of the official opposition and I led the charge for truth and transparency. I would remind the House that the Winnipeg lab affair happened right in the middle of the pandemic. Scientists had slipped out of sight overnight. These scientists came from the country ruled by the dictatorship in Beijing, and they also worked with those people. We had a thousand questions about that. We had a duty as parliamentarians to get to the bottom of the matter.
Unfortunately, through its representatives, the Winnipeg lab refused to comply with the order of the House to testify and produce the documents we were requesting. Since they did not comply, in a rare moment in the history of our Parliament, one of the senior officials from the Winnipeg lab was summoned to the entrance of this chamber to be admonished by the House. I did not take that lightly. As a parliamentarian, it is my duty and the duty of us all to take action and get to the bottom of things.
Here we are again today facing the same situation. Our constituents honour us by giving us the mandate to ensure that the taxes Canadians pay are put to proper use. I would remind my colleagues that none of the GST that Canadians paid today will go toward services or programs. All of it will go to support the colossal debt racked up by the current government. I may be digressing a little from this evening's topic of discussion. However, since we are here to talk about public finances, that fact needs to stay front of mind. This scandal broke, and unfortunately, it was only one more in a very long, despicable and sorry list chalked up by this scandal-ridden government.
Everyone remembers WE Charity. Pressure was mounting on the Prime Minister's family and close friends—we are talking about friends of friends and millions of dollars—when Parliament was conveniently prorogued. The member for Carleton, the current Leader of the Opposition, who was the finance critic at the time, had him backed into a corner. The Prime Minister had no other choice because the people at WE Charity were in so much trouble. The only way the government could put an end to the investigation was to prorogue the House. That ended the investigation and marked a fresh start. There was the WE Charity scandal, and then there was ArriveCAN. Hundreds of millions of dollars was spent on that pitiful app, which, in the end, was used for a matter of months. It could have been done at a fraction of the cost.
Jody Wilson-Raybould, a great woman, an indigenous woman, was appointed minister of justice and approached the role with the high-mindedness and independence it deserved. She said no to the Prime Minister's partisan demands, so she was thrown under the bus. Unfortunately, she took the health minister with her. Then these people boast about being feminists. Yes, they are feminists in front of the camera, but as soon as they run into trouble, they throw women under the bus.
Nothing like this had ever happened before in the history of Canada, but let us not forget that the current Prime Minister has been rebuked by the Ethics Commissioner twice.
My time is running out. I have so much more to say. I would just add that we are, above all, here for Canadians. Canadians want the truth. Canadians want to know what is being done with their money. That is why, today, we are fighting for all Canadians.
