Debates of Oct. 8th, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, you put the right kind of pressure on all of us. I would hope that the member would only rise if there was the occasion of a real point of order.

As I said, we have been debating this so long we may have forgotten why we are having this debate. We must not forget we are talking about over 180 conflicts of interest involving $330 million. I know other members have said it is more than that. Those are not the government's dollars, but the dollars of the citizens we represent. They send their hard-earned tax dollars to the government with the expectation that they be treated with care. By being treated with care, they mean not for narrow or partisan interests but for the public interest. How can we tell if money is spent correctly? We may disagree on priorities or the reasons for said spending, but we should always be alerted when an officer of Parliament raises concerns.

What happened? As the Auditor General told us, but only after a whistle-blower came forward, I would add, she discovered that over $330 million in contracts had been improperly awarded by this Liberal-appointed board of directors. She was also surprised to discover that these same Liberal-appointed board members had all kinds of conflicts of interest.

One wonders if they were getting advice from Mark Carney back then. Just to recap, there were 186 conflicts of interest involving $330 million that improperly went out the door. Much of this money was directly funnelled into board members' companies. Aside from the obvious conflicts of interest, it was also revealed that some of these projects were not even eligible for funding under this program.

This is where it gets truly insulting to Canadians. I have constituents who, through no fault of their own, were overpaid CERB money. When this happened, as we all know, the CRA clawed back the money. That is the end of the story, full stop. What happens here? What happens to all the money paid out wrongly to ineligible corporations run by Liberal insiders? Will it be clawed back in the same way it would be for everyday Canadians who work and pay their bills, or will this be different? As is so often the case when it comes to the Prime Minister, there is one set of rules for everyone else and one set of rules for him and his friends.

I have been listening to this debate for several days now, and not once have I heard a single Liberal member demand that all this money be recovered. Why is that? Why is there always a different set of rules for the Prime Minister and his friends?

It was quite something when the leader of the NDP recently flip-flopped on the carbon tax, and the Liberals gleefully accused the NDP of caving in to pressure. However, when the Liberals caved in to pressure and exempted home heating oil from the carbon tax, that was different, was it not? It is okay for the Liberals cave, but not for anyone else.

Of course, we all know it is not acceptable to try to hide the documents that allowed this green slush fund to enrich the Liberals' cronies. That is, of course, why we are here, as the Liberals try to hide these documents.

What is most insulting is that the Prime Minister's Office has come out with the most politically absurd defence imaginable, and that is saying a lot for this particular Prime Minister's Office, given the great many scandals. It claims the Liberals are standing up for the charter in trying to hide these documents as they run from accountability. Who dreamt this up?

I had a constituent ask me if the Liberals are seriously arguing they have a charter right to engage in corruption. On the Liberal side of the House, the members will not want to hear that. They will say that is not what they are trying to say, but the problem for the Liberal government is that this is all Canadians are hearing, because this is what happens when a government has zero credibility and a well-documented track record of corruption and failure.

To be clear, I also want to say that I realize many members on the Liberal side of the House are not directly responsible for what has happened here. We all know there is a small and powerful group of unelected people within the Prime Minister's Office who call the shots. Likewise, we know that certain ministers remain ministers at the Prime Minister's cabinet table because they will do what they are told and they will also look the other way.

This is exactly what allowed the SDTC green slush fund to enrich wealthy Liberal friends and insiders. A minister did what he was told and looked the other way. Only a whistle-blower stood in the way, and now we see a desperate Prime Minister's Office trying to hide behind the charter as a defence for Liberal corruption.

The lengths the Prime Minister's Office will go to cover this up are incredible. That is why we are here, and oddly, as I said earlier, the Prime Minister's Office does not seem to care. As long as it can hide from transparency and accountability, that is all that matters. It makes me wonder what is within those documents the Liberals are so terrified of, but if the Prime Minister's Office has its way, we just will never know.

Before I conclude my speech, let me ask a simple question of the Liberal side of the House. When the members eventually leave this place, either through an election or on their own, and when they look back at this green slush fund, they will know the facts. That there were 186 conflicts of interest is a fact. That over $330 million improperly went out the door is a fact.

Did they come here to defend the Prime Minister's Office, or did they come to make a difference in their community? I think most are here for the second reason. They have a real chance to do something meaningful here.

They must tell the Prime Minister's Office that enough is enough. It is time to come clean, stop hiding the truth and send a message that in Canada, transparency and accountability still matter. That does not change. It is time to send a message that they could always be proud of the day they stood up and said enough is enough to the Prime Minister's Office, because Canadians deserve better. Many of the Liberals deserve better from their Prime Minister. We all do.

Let me thank all the members of this place for hearing my comments today. I look forward to their questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, when SDTC messed up and the government was made aware of it, the government took serious actions, everything from replacement of the board to internal reviews. We have had a national auditor. We have had endless hours of debate within standing committee. Also, we have provided assurances that the taxpayer will, in fact, receive accountability on the issue.

If we take a look at the motion, what they are saying is they want to grab information, even though we have provided information. The problem the Conservatives have, they say, is that parts of it are redacted. This is just like information from every other government, including Stephen Harper's, that provides redacted documents, but that is not good enough.

They want to grab everything, all the details, and hand it directly over to the RCMP. The RCMP as an institution has said that makes it uncomfortable. However, the Conservative Party still believes, for its political gain, that it will push this issue and attach the word “corruption”, even though the chair of the committee was an adviser to Brian Mulroney, to Stephen Harper and also to Jim Flaherty.

Does the member not see some possible hypocrisy?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, let us bear in mind the facts. The minister responsible knew about this for 40 months and did not say anything. It was only when this became public that Liberals started taking action.

If the government was really serious about taking action and making this whole process accountable, why does it continue to stonewall the chamber on all of its other business because it will not give the documents to a trusted agency, the RCMP, which is at arm's length? The RCMP will follow the law of the Privacy Act of Canada and ensure the privacy of all information.

The member says that is the kind of action Canadians want. No, they want the Prime Minister to own up to what he used to say, that sunlight is the best disinfectant. The member is making this whole process opaque. He is running cover for both the Prime Minister and the minister responsible.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with most of what my colleague from British Columbia said, including about the current Liberal government's obligation to be accountable. I am looking ahead a bit, and I would like to know what commitments the Conservatives will make, because I think that once these documents are made public, there will be some scores to settle.

I wonder about some of SDTC's results. SDTC provided $1.7 billion in funding for businesses to implement projects that supported nearly 25,000 direct and indirect jobs and generated more than $3 billion in revenues, with a total of $13.27 billion in follow-on financing generated by SDTC-funded companies since 2001.

Does my Conservative colleague promise that once the necessary cleanup is done, the commitments to innovation and sustainable development for the energy transition will be maintained?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the intervention from the member from Quebec. Anyone who says they agree with me in a public is a brave person.

I referred earlier to the difference between the public interest and the public trust. I believe this motion is on the public trust, because Parliament has its fundamental role of accountability and the government has its role to be accountable. That is what we are talking about. His arguments about SDTC and its future are debatable. We can have legitimate policy disagreements about the future of that organization given some of this mess, but right now, it is the government that must be held accountable.

I hope we can have a conversation about the public interest, but right now, we need to preserve the public trust, and that means getting the minority government to be accountable to this chamber.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, for days now Parliament has called to move the scandal to an investigation so we can get to the bottom of it, but the Conservatives are blocking all kinds of work on crime and health so they can filibuster with their endless speeches. It is all based on the fact that they think people have no memory.

I, with my grey hair, was here when Brian Mulroney was caught accepting money in a brown paper bag in a hotel room. That is normally what bikers get caught doing. He was the prime minister of the country, but he was a Conservative. I was here when Tony Clement took $50 million of border protection money and gave it out through his bogus little network to have sunken boats, fake lakes and gazebos.

Here is the thing. Does everyone remember, during the pandemic, when people could not go to work and the Conservatives were saying not to give them money because it would make them lazy? It was CERB money that was meant for waitresses, factory workers, people who could not go to their jobs because of the pandemic. Stephen Harper said it was “overkill” and “bad macroeconomic policy on an enormous scale”.

What Stephen Harper did not tell us is he was scamming the taxpayers for CERB money for him and his associates. This is a guy whose claim, when he gets $250,000 a year in pension, is that people give him money for the advice of a G7 leader. Is this the kind of guy who needed CERB payments? We will never see a single Conservative stand up and say someone should pay the money back when it is one of their hacks or friends. They will go along with it. If a Conservative gets caught with their hand in the honey pot, Conservatives will say it is okay, but it is not okay. It is not the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member has just been here too long, but he has become cynical.

He reminds me of Don Quixote. Don Quixote had all the right intentions, but because he could not perceive reality properly, he strode off at windmills, just to prove the point that he was a knight.

Sometimes, the cowboy should go off into the sunset. I would suggest this member from Ontario do that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind the hon. member that we are all at the will of our constituents, and they are the only ones who could make that decision.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have the privilege and honour to sit in the House on behalf of the people of Louis-Saint-Laurent and to know my colleague from British Columbia. I thank him and congratulate him on his French and his efforts to learn the language.

During his speech, the member highlighted the reason we are in the House today to debate this motion, which seeks to shed light on one of the most outrageous scandals this Liberal administration has been involved in.

The scale of it is not unlike the sponsorship scandal, multiplied by five. Nearly $400 million of tax dollars, Canadian workers' money, was not managed responsibly. The Auditor General concluded that the fund's administrators, friends of the Liberal Party, took this money by the fistful and paid it to their own companies 186 times.

That is why we are here. Could the member tell me why the government is refusing to respond to the House's order to allow the RCMP access to all the necessary documentation?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, there will be a lot of discussion about Liberal accountability in the next election. As my colleague said, the problem right now is that the Liberals are not providing the information that is required of them. The government has no respect for Parliament. We need to stand firm on our decision to force this government to be accountable.

We will press, not just because the order demands it but also because we respect ourselves.

Access to Parliament Hill

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Thornhill on October 7.

We believe that all Canadians have a right to peaceful protest. However, my intervention strictly deals with whether this matter constitutes a prima facie question of privilege.

The member cited House of Commons Procedures and Practice, third edition, at page 107, which states, “In order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, Members should be able to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed.”

The member also cited page 110, which states:

Incidents involving physical obstruction—such as traffic barriers, security cordons and union picket lines either impeding Members’ access to the Parliamentary Precinct or blocking their free movement within the precinct—as well as occurrences of physical assault...have been found to be prima facie cases of privilege.

Both of these citations refer to members being impeded because members have parliamentary privilege. The situation that the member describes does not involve members and, as such, this does not constitute a question of privilege.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Centre, Finance; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Public Safety; the hon. member for Oxford, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, today's debate is an important one, as it involves Canadians' hard-earned taxpayer dollars. It involves the ruling of the Speaker with respect to the production of documents ordered by the House, on the scandal involving Sustainable Development Technology Canada, something that unfortunately has become known as the Liberal billion-dollar green flush fund. The House had ordered the production of the documents around the scandal to the law clerk, with the intent that the documents could then be provided to the RCMP for investigation.

However, the will of the House has been hijacked by the Prime Minister's Privy Council Office. In its infinite wisdom, the Prime Minister's department, the PCO, decided to execute the order by telling departments to provide documents but heavily redact them. That decision was a breach of members' privilege. The order was not some plaything for the PCO or the Prime Minister. The order did not ask for redaction. That is why we find ourselves here today, discussing an issue that involves the primacy of Parliament over all things.

One would think that is a fairly important element in our Canadian democracy. The matter has also been referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for further consideration. We nonetheless clearly see some objections from the government. Imagine, the government even rolled in allegations that all of this is some alleged breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It strains credulity and it is a total farce to argue a charter breach. Arguing that Parliament cannot receive documents that could assist the RCMP in its investigation of possible wrongdoing is not acceptable. There is no breach of the charter. There is, however, a clear-cut example of obfuscation and of impeding a criminal investigation. How did we get to all of this?

A beautifully sounding entity was established in 2001, with an ambitious name: Sustainable Development Technology Canada. It had the noble purpose of giving taxpayer financial assistance to green technology companies before they could become commercialized. It was a marvellous mandate with beneficial objectives, but from the time the Liberal government was elected, unfortunately SDTC controlled a billion dollars of taxpayer money that has since become what is now known today as the green slush fund.

Sadly, some probing by parliamentary committees found cause for serious concern. A whopping 82% of funding transactions approved by the SDTC board of directors during a five-year sample period examined by the Auditor General of Canada were deemed to be “conflicted”. For anyone who understands how auditing is done, that was just a random sample. A random sample produced a whopping 82% of transactions that were conflicted. One does not have to be a professional auditor to realize that if a random sample shows 82%, that is just the tip of the iceberg.

According to the Auditor General, the confliction represents $330 million of taxpayer money being given to companies that had a conflict of interest. SDTC board members voted on giving funding to those companies. Moreover, the Auditor General found that the same board thought it was okay to approve another $59 million in projects that they were not authorized to do and that were outside the mandate of the very foundation the government and Parliament set up.

To put it bluntly, the board broke SDTC contribution agreements. In their role as SDTC directors, those directors broke Canadian conflict of interest laws as public office holders, and they broke the SDTC Act itself. That is quite the accomplishment. At the very least, such activities uncovered by the Auditor General would certainly warrant examination by appropriate authorities. Why then is it such an affront to the Liberal government and the PCO to have the allegations delved into further by the RCMP?

If laws were broken and a federal act was ignored, why would the government not want to get to the bottom of it? Instead, the government has done its best to circumvent Parliament and an order from the Speaker to provide the documents. Why would that be the case? Why would the government not provide the documents? They are documents that could divulge the existence of improprieties.

The statutes are clear enough. People who are given Governor in Council appointments by the government to oversee taxpayer money are not to personally profit from their work, nor is their family. However, evidence has come to light that, in a five-year period, there were 405 transactions approved by the board. The Auditor General sampled only 226, about half, and found that 186 of those transactions were conflicted. That is the 82%. That is the $330 million. It is likely that more transactions are conflicted.

Is the reluctance exhibited by the Liberals to provide the requested documents predicated on their not wanting to admit that their selected SDTC board directors presided over transactions and gave millions in taxpayer money to the wrong people, who acted to benefit their own companies? Does the government want to know the truth and what the conflicts in question were? We see such a refusal to get to the bottom of what occurred; why would the government not want to know what these conflicts are? What was the value of the benefits obtained, and who benefited?

What is obscene is that, in some cases investigated by the Auditor General, according to meeting minutes, SDTC directors would stay in the room while the board was voting on their own project. What kind of unacceptable procedures and operations were being conducted?

It is unconscionable that, in one case, a member of the SDTC board received $114 million for green companies that the director had invested in. I guess it is a great game, if one can get it. What is even worse is that, after the SDTC board member's own company received $114 million in taxpayer money, its value tripled. Getting an SDTC grant is a stamp of approval from the Government of Canada that allows these companies to raise other funds. Adding to this case is that the director's lobbyist was the individual's in-house lobbyist for 10 years before he was elected. That lobbyist is none other than the current Minister of Environment.

Given this kind of activity, it is little wonder that the Liberal government does not want any facts or truths to come forward. This is a disgrace. The government has resisted providing the SDTC documents and, by doing so, has stymied the investigation process. It is clear why. With just a limited examination by the Auditor General, it appears that $390 million of taxpayer money has gone to Liberal insiders. This is likely what the government is attempting to conceal. This is why the Liberal government is opposing that order and the production of documents, which would then be turned over to the RCMP. If the Liberal government wanted to hide what went on within SDTC, producing highly redacted documents would now make perfect sense. Why would the Liberals want to have anything to do with the malfeasance and abuse of taxpayer money? What arrogance is this?

It is likely that the 226 of the 400 or so transactions identified by the Auditor General are just the tip of the money-giveaway iceberg, even though they represent $390 million. Strangely, all of this does not seem to worry the Liberals in the slightest. The SDTC board, by all accounts, appears to have caught on to the game well. It used to put out a quarterly report on every company it dealt with and assisted with funding, but it does not do so anymore.

We are here today debating the Speaker's ruling on the privilege motion with respect to the Prime Minister's department, the PCO, redacting documents. This was done against the House order to provide documents regarding the Liberal green slush fund to the law clerk to be transferred to the RCMP for investigation. We are debating, but there really is no need for debate.

There is, however, a great need for upholding the supremacy of Parliament and for our government to support the rule of law rather than trying to subvert it. This issue concerns systemic conflicts of interest and corruption with the green slush fund. At present, we only know that $390 million was disposed of. As of today, a forensic audit has not been done by the Auditor General. The Auditor General did, however, conduct a sampling of things.

This whole affair is also important because Parliament is the highest court in the land, and the Speaker is its servant. An order from the Speaker must be upheld and not doctored to withhold evidence. These are fundamental elements of democracy. They matter and so does the wise, legal and worthy expenditures of taxpayers' money. Taxpayers work hard, and their money must be used responsibly and in a way that maximizes benefit for them, for Canadians, not Liberal insiders.

Instead of focusing on assisting an investigation by the RCMP into what went on with the Liberals' green slush fund, we are here today trying to end the delay and obfuscation to obtain readable evidence and get to the truth. However, the Liberal government is fighting it every step of the way. Why is it that despite the billowing smoke of corruption at such unprecedented levels, the House finds itself having to request that the Liberal government abide by the Speaker's ruling and produce documents that can be read so the information can be transferred to a full investigation by the RCMP? It should be quite straightforward. However, it is far from that.

The House is in a pitched battle right now to access information and determine the truth of the green slush fund. We have to ask, is there more corruption yet to surface from the Liberals' green slush fund? Are there charges that should be laid? Who knows the truth, as Parliament is being shielded from it? That is not acceptable to the House. What do we know? What we do know is that the appropriate use of taxpayers' money must always be the rule, not the exception.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, like the Conservative opposition, the member makes reference to Liberal insiders. I am not sure if he is aware that the board of SDTC was, at the time, chaired by someone who advised both Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney and provided advice to Jim Flaherty. To say that this is all about Liberal insiders and that is why we are trying to hide something is just not true. The member should at least acknowledge that fact.

We have provided information, albeit redacted, just as former prime ministers and many premiers have done when providing information. At times, there is a need to have redactions. What is different here is that the government is being told by the opposition to contradict what the RCMP and the Auditor General are saying. They are pushing to get information directly so they can hand it straight over to the RCMP. Even the RCMP is questioning that tactic, yet the member opposite tries to give the false impression that we are trying to hide something.

Why will he not be honest with his constituents and tell them that the real reason documents are being held back is the concerns about the Charter of Rights and that this means something to him?

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal member loves to go back in time, so I too will go back in time and reiterate that the Minister of Environment was the in-house lobbyist for 10 years for a company that conveniently was appointed as one of the first investors on the SDTC board. That same company received $114 million, and a director invested in it. What a coincidence it is that this insider's investment has since tripled.

If the member wants to go back in time and pick random things, why does he not look at the historical record of his colleague, the Minister of Environment, and his vested interests. It is not a coincidence that companies with a connection to the government have tripled in value. Maybe they were good investments, but when insiders are appointed to a board that can hand out money and that breaks conflict of interest rules, that is an issue.

The Liberals can continue to obfuscate all they want, but this is a matter they cannot hide from. Canadians deserve better, and they deserve to know where their $400 million went.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will go further on the issue of the radical Minister of Environment, who was a paid lobbyist for 10 years for Cycle Capital when he received his shares. He was elected in 2019, and the year before that, he lobbied the PMO and the industry department 25 times for Cycle Capital, some of that while he was the nominated candidate for the Liberal Party. Then in 2020, while he was a member of cabinet, cabinet approved another $750 million for the Liberal green slush fund. The claim that there were not Liberal insiders, which the hon. member on the Liberal side makes, is false.

I would like the member to comment specifically on the issue that for some mistaken reason, the Liberals think the only way a police investigation can happen is for the police to ask for documents. If someone who operates a business finds that an employee has committed a malfeasance and the Government of Canada owns the business, is it not their obligation to turn those documents over to the police? They do not have to wait for the police to discover it, do they?

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my Conservative colleague wholeheartedly. It is the obligation and responsibility, the fiduciary duty, of a company to do exactly that. As an entrepreneur before I was elected and as somebody who sacrificed options because I was elected and chose to serve, I put a lot of thought into how I would ensure no direct, overt conflicts of interest, which we are talking about right now, and even the perception of them.

Any reasonable Canadian looking at this right now, with the Minister of Environment having been a 10-year lobbyist for a company that had an investor appointed to a board that doled out money and who happened to dole out money to their own company, would think it just smells funny, and I am putting that lightly. My Conservative colleague went into all of the specifics, because I know he has been at the forefront of driving this, but there is a huge issue here and Canadians deserve to get to the bottom of it. The Liberal government must stop obfuscating and hand over the documents first and foremost so that we can get to the bottom of this corruption.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, further on that, here is the situation that happened. The radical Minister of Environment's boss was the founder of Cycle Capital before he was elected. That person sat on the board, and her company, over its duration, received a quarter of a billion dollars, or 25% of all the money in the Liberal green slush fund. Coincidentally, that board member, who owned Cycle Capital, was shifted to the Infrastructure Bank board, and guess what the first investment was she approved as a board member at the Infrastructure Bank. It was $170 million for the company owned by the chair of the Liberal green slush fund, Annette Verschuren.

Does the member think there is a cozy little conflict of interest, a little conspiracy of conflict of interest, between these directors when 82% of the transactions the board approved are conflicted and when one goes to another board and then featherbeds the board she just left?

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, those are blatant conflicts of interest, and I alluded to this earlier. When any auditor, never mind the Auditor General of Canada, takes a random sample and finds that 82% of it has a conflict of interest, any normal person would wonder, “What if we did a full, complete forensic audit?” That is vitally important here.

What we are seeing is a pattern of behaviour, a pattern of conflict and a pattern of insider dealing, and as a taxpayer, and on behalf of taxpayers and my constituents, many of whom are start-up owners and entrepreneurs, I know we cannot allow this to continue. Their hard-earned money should not be going to insiders. It should not be going to a government that picks winners and is only picking its friends. That is not good for our country. It is also not good for the start-up environment and the alleged green industry that the government claims to care about.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed. The member has chosen not to make reference at all to what the RCMP and the Auditor General have said. They have expressed concerns with what our colleagues in the Conservative Party are doing in regard to the proposal of having the information gathered and then handed directly over to the RCMP in an unredacted form. They have expressed concern about that tactic.

Does the member not see that we should at least listen to what the RCMP and the Auditor General have to say on the issue? As opposed to trying to commit character assassination, why not just allow this issue, as the Speaker has recommended, to be handed over to the procedure and House affairs committee, letting us continue with other House-related business?

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary makes reference to the Auditor General. I think it is important to read a quote from an SDTC whistle-blower specifically referencing the Auditor General. They 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.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is truly a privilege for me to take part in the debate on this question of privilege today. As members know, I have been in the House since 2006, and history has been repeating itself year after year since the election of the Liberal government. Unfortunately, the scandals have been piling up under this government, and the green fund scandal is just the cherry on top to crown the past nine years. “Cherry on top” may not be the right expression, but we can only imagine how much is hidden behind all the events and all these years. I must admit that I get the impression that this government is doing a big cleanup before the next election to hide as much as possible or to destroy whatever evidence it can before any investigation can be held into just about all of their accomplishments.

This big, colossal Liberal government is not even hiding it anymore. It openly refuses to provide the RCMP with the documents it needs to investigate the undeniable corruption that no doubt allowed Liberal cronies to benefit their friends with money from the green fund, as the Auditor General found. It is really sad because the green fund was actually a good fund designated by the Department of the Environment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across Canada through technology initiatives. It would have been deeply appreciated and timely, given the challenges future generations will face over the next few decades in reducing greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, as I will demonstrate in a few minutes, this money was not necessarily used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but rather to line the pockets of Liberal Party cronies.

While Canadians are struggling, life has never been better for well-connected Liberal insiders. If a person is well connected, like the friends of the Liberal Party are, then they can apply for and get funds just like that. We are waiting to prove it, if one day we can get our hands on the documents that were requested by the House. Meanwhile, the Auditor General, Karen Hogan, was able to demonstrate problems with the financing of small and medium-sized businesses in the environmental technology sector that received money from the organization. The organization's mission is a very noble one, but that mission was perverted when the organization's budget of $1 billion over five years was used to line some people's pockets. Let me use my favourite saying: This is truly scandalous.

Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, must remain independent and sheltered from politics in order to achieve its primary goal, which is to use scientific knowledge to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. The hope is that the government will appoint competent, independent people to the board of directors, who do not necessarily own businesses in the fund's sector of activity. The least we can do is avoid placing these individuals in a conflict of interest. That is the goal, especially since these technologies will let us reduce our greenhouse gas emissions without sacrificing our lives and our country's development to do it.

In any case, we, the Conservatives, on this side of the House, believe that science and technology will be one of the main tools in our tool box for improving our environmental track record when it comes to greenhouse gas. Concrete actions need to be taken. Investing in our Canadian scientists and in useful things like reducing our greenhouse gas emissions could make a huge difference in improving the future for generations to come. However, a corruption scandal of this magnitude has undermined the mission of SDTC, with non-repayable contributions that have nothing to do with greenhouse gases.

For example, the Auditor General noted in her report that she was able to analyze 18 projects completed through the fund rather than each individual project. She therefore looked at a sample of 18 projects. Of those 18 projects, 12 met only half of the greenhouse gas reduction targets, contrary to what was presented when the projects were being assessed.

Was this anticipated, or was the government pushing the limit when it submitted the projects for funding? Maybe, maybe not, but for now, if we extrapolate from all these results, it means that more than 66% of the projects submitted probably would not have qualified for public funding if they had been presented with the objectives they achieved. They would not have qualified for the funding and could not have been funded. However, they did end up being funded. Because of these false premises, they were granted funding, sadly.

Overstating the effectiveness of projects has unfortunately been commonplace. In fact, it has been the rule, not the exception. When accepting applications of that nature under a program, some might fail to meet the objectives. However, since 66% of the projects submitted did not meet the objectives, there may have been some irregularities when the applications were accepted.

The government's refusal to produce these documents is without a doubt an admission of guilt. The majority of members in the House of Commons voted to force the Liberals to make the documents public. We are still wondering why they have not been released.

Our parliamentary privilege is being violated and nothing is being done about it across the way. We might say that the government is trying to save face and hide the extent of the corruption in this whole affair. It is very reminiscent of the sponsorship scandal. They tried to hide a lot of things, but thanks to the perseverance of members who were sitting in the House at the time, we ended up getting to the truth, which led to an election and the defeat of the previous Liberal government.

What we are talking about here is the fact that some individuals gave public money to their own companies through the board of directors. Unfortunately, people gave money to companies that were owned by board members or by those who had direct or indirect ties to board members. They did it once, twice, three times, and perhaps as many as 186 times. Of course, after awhile, these people wondered why they could not have some money too, since they had given money to practically everyone. Everyone took a little. That is putting private interest above public interest, which is an all-too-common Liberal practice. Tax dollars were used to help private companies that, unfortunately, did not produce any results. One also has to wonder about that.

The Auditor General was very clear: The chair of the green slush fund, who was chosen by the Prime Minister, broke the law. She was in a direct conflict of interest. That was undoubtedly one of many errors in judgment on the part of the Prime Minister.

I would like to go over the events and provide some figures for us to understand the extent of the problem. Earlier this summer, the Auditor General found that directors had awarded funding to projects that were ineligible and that involved conflicts of interest. In all, $123 million worth of contracts were awarded inappropriately, and $59 million went to projects that should have never received money in the first place. The organization's own conflict of interest policies were broken more than 186 times. It is completely ridiculous.

In addition, the Auditor General found that more than $300 million in public funds had been paid out in more than 186 cases involving a potential conflict of interest. The Prime Minister's appointees were doling out money to companies that belonged to them.

Unfortunately, Canadians' tax dollars are being squandered yet again. The chair of the green slush fund was chosen by the Prime Minister, even though he had been warned of her conflicts of interest. True to form, the Prime Minister, did what he wanted and decided to appoint her to the position anyway.

SDTC is supposed to be an independent organization, accountable to the innovation minister. It has a duty to achieve its objectives and to fund companies that are genuinely beneficial to the environment in order to restore public confidence in our institutions as quickly as possible. Trust in our institutions has, sadly, been broken. This is really important here in the House because, in the Parliament of Canada as a whole, with all the funding we provide and allocate, we really do owe it to ourselves to be transparent.

After the forest fires that have raged across Canada in recent years, the Liberals are not taking the organization's mission seriously. We know that the organization's goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as to find technologies to prevent these greenhouse gas emissions. Enough is enough. The Prime Minister must comply with Parliament's order and table the documents pertinent to the green slush fund so that the RCMP can investigate this corruption scandal. Canadians deserve transparency. The will of the House and the will of all Canadians cannot be ignored.

This whole slush fund mechanism was set up with full knowledge of the facts. It is hard to imagine that a big board of directors failed to understand or realize the potential for conflicts of interest in their own decisions. The ministers knew about it and refused to stop their friends at SDTC from engaging in corruption. A recording by a senior official called out the Liberal government on its incompetence for inappropriately awarding contracts worth $123 million. This was the senior official who said, on August 25, 2023, “There's a lot of sloppiness and laziness. There is some outright incompetence and, you know, the situation is just kind of untenable at this point.” He reported that the crooked business going on at SDTC is “a sponsorship-level kind of giveaway”.

The least we can say is that this new scandal deserves our full attention and that, once again, we are going to have to get out the magnifying glass, put our shoulder to the wheel and spend our time chasing down all the Liberals' unscrupulous dirty dealings. The House must address this new scandal as quickly as possible. That is part of our duty as legislators. It shows us once again that this Prime Minister and the members of his government fully deserve to be removed from the duties they are no longer worthy of.

I can just hear the Liberals, with a big fat smile on their faces, suggesting that the documents have already been handed over to the authorities and that the RCMP has already begun its investigation. However, the parliamentary law clerk indicated in his letter that the RCMP has not received all the documents that the House asked for and that the Department of Justice has refused to hand over its documents to the RCMP. Many documents have been redacted and others withheld. If the government does not hand over all the evidence to the police, there cannot be a full investigation. It is hard to find the truth with only half the evidence.

This whole story could easily be over if the Liberals ended the secrecy and handed over the documents to the appropriate authorities to determine once and for all whether there is culpability or not. This should not be a partisan issue. The other opposition parties in the House also voted for the motion, but the Liberals are slow to act on things and the 30-day deadline is drawing to a close, unfortunately.

As recordings that the whistle-blowers released last year showed, this controversy is one of a long series of scandals during the past nine years of Liberal incompetence. These scandals have involved both corruption and the squandering of public funds. Think of ArriveCAN, an application that should have cost $80,000 but ended up costing $59.5 billion. That is more than 740 times the original cost. Think of the WE Charity scandal, in which a contract to administer public funds was going to be sent to a foundation with close ties to the Prime Minister's family. When this was discovered, Parliament was prorogued.

Let us also not forget the excellent work of the Auditor General, who showed that the Prime Minister had inappropriately awarded hundreds of millions of dollars to McKinsey. In fact, 90% of the firm's contracts, valued at $209 million, were awarded without even following the appropriate guidelines, and 70% of those contracts were awarded non-competitively, without a call for tenders.

I could give many more examples, since the list is long, but people tend to remember things better when one follows a rule of three. In closing, according to my calculations, 58% of the green fund's seed funding, another fund, was distributed in Liberal ridings, whereas only 45% of the members here in the House are Liberals. We can therefore assume that non-Liberal ridings may not have received their fair share. There appears to be a lot of favouritism and unfairness again.

Canadians deserve a transparent, accountable government with sound judgment and integrity. Only the common-sense Conservatives will put an end to corruption and get answers for Canadians. Canadians want an election as soon as possible to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am racking my brain. I am not a House affairs historian, but could the member tell us whether, if the documents are handed over to the RCMP, this would be the first time that the House handed over documents to a third party, in other words, the first time the House served a third party?

I would like to talk about another thing. I have heard members on the other side say that we do not have to worry about privacy because we can trust the RCMP and the police. Does that mean that, from now on, search warrants are no longer needed?