Debates of Nov. 1st, 2024

The House resumed from October 31 consideration of the motion, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, happy birthday yesterday, plus one. It is always a happy day.

I normally would be pleased, and I am always pleased, to rise in this place, even when it concerns a $400-million Liberal scandal. For those who are watching and just tuning in, perhaps I could recap. We are in the 66th hour of a Liberal filibuster on the refusal to provide documents to the House of Commons. This was demanded in June and voted on by a majority of members of Parliament, representing a majority of Canadians, in terms of the $400-million scandal identified by the Auditor General with regard to the Liberal green slush fund. Hand-picked directors of the Prime Minister funnelled that money to companies they own.

Just to give us some perspective, the Liberal filibuster began at the end of September. It is the longest in parliamentary history. The previous one, over yet another Liberal scandal, was only 16 hours. This issue has seized the House simply because the Liberals are redacting, as it is called, documents ordered by the House. What is redaction? Redaction means that they are censoring them.

The House of Commons ordered the production of documents on this scandal. Over 10,000 pages were provided. Most of them went through a lot of black ink toner cartridge because there was so much blacked out in them. They had to bring in new photocopiers in the PMO. This was ordered by the PMO, by the Prime Minister's own department, to breach the rules.

The Speaker found what is called a prima facie case of privilege. What that means, for those watching, is that the ultimate authority above everything else is the House of Commons' ability to order documents to be provided by government, to hold the Crown, the cabinet, to account for its actions. The cabinet is defying it.

What could we do with $400 million instead of funnelling it to Liberal insider companies as the Liberals have done? I will get into it. I am sure that it is not $400 million. I may be mistaken. It may be closer to $700 million, and I will explain that in a minute.

What we could do in my province of Nova Scotia with $400 million is build a thousand homes. However, the priority of the Liberals was to funnel it to their own companies so that they could enrich themselves while Canadians line up in record numbers at food banks and while people in my riding have to live in trailers and campers in camping parks because they cannot find housing. Those thousand houses that could have been built with that $400 million in Nova Scotia would be enormously helpful.

I will just tell us how extensive this cover-up is. We had the architect of the Liberal green slush fund, former Liberal minister Navdeep Bains, in the industry committee this week. Some may remember him. He was the industry minister for the Liberals from 2015 to 2021. He directly appointed all the corrupt Liberal insiders to this board, who then funnelled money to their companies. At committee, we asked him some pretty straightforward and simple questions. If I could, I will read from Hansard from the committee meeting this week.

I asked a simple question of former Liberal minister Navdeep Bains. I asked him where he worked. He said, “As I've indicated, the topic I was asked to speak on was Sustainable Development Technology Canada”. Again, I asked where he worked. He said it was on the public record.

Indeed, it is on the public record. While he was industry minister, he was responsible for lowering cellphone fees. The Prime Minister gave him the mandate. We all know that we have the most expensive cellphone costs in the world, according to international studies. Can we guess who former Liberal minister Navdeep Bains works for? He was too embarrassed to say, or perhaps those at Rogers ordered him not to say it at committee because they were too embarrassed to have him mention their name and that he worked there. However, he works for Rogers, which is the most expensive cellphone company in the world. He just kept saying that it is on the public record.

He was a good Liberal who always followed the talking points from the PMO. I suspect that he was following talking points from Rogers saying to please not associate Rogers, this most expensive cellphone company, with the Liberal corruption scandal that he was in charge of.

We had testimony from the former chair whom Navdeep Bains appointed, who he was warned had a conflict. He said to her, and to everyone in SDTC, that it was okay and they would manage the conflict. They managed the conflict of that money into their companies. The former minister himself said that was okay. That appointee, Annette Verschuren, said in committee that she never applied for any job in her life. She said Navdeep Bains called her twice to talk her into running, putting in an application and becoming the chair of the board. She said, even though he knew she was conflicted, he called her twice. I asked him if he called her twice, because that is what she testified to, and he said he did not remember.

Then I said the former CEO of the Liberal green slush fund testified before the committee that former minister Bains called her and told her to vet the candidate. She said they could not have this person as a candidate for chair because SDTC did business with her companies. If she were picked, she would be the first chair in the 20-year history of SDTC who had a conflict. Bains said it was okay and to ask her if she wanted to do it. He was warned again. Whether we believe it or not, there was actually somebody who worked in the Liberal Prime Minister's office, who was doing communications in a nice patronage job in the Liberal green slush fund. She warned the minister's office that he should not appoint this person because of the conflict. It was still ignored. This was not some mistake or some hands-off occurrence where they did not know what was going on because they are an incompetent minister who does not follow anything in their department.

I then asked Navdeep Bains if he remembered going to cabinet to get another $750 million of taxpayer money for the Liberal green slush fund. He said it was in the budget. I said that the things in the budget have to have the minister's approval. I asked if it had his approval, but he did not remember. We have a Liberal who does not remember giving away $750 million of taxpayer money. I guess that is just pocket change for the Liberals. It is either that or he was just unwilling to admit that he was part of this scheme.

We have asked, in those documents, for all the documents from the department that the former minister ran, the industry department. Can we guess which department has not complied with the whole order? It is the industry department. Can we guess which department has the most blacked-out and censored documents? It is the industry department. It is rivalled only by the Prime Minister's department, the Privy Council Office, which has also refused to give the truth about its documents. An incredible cover-up is going on.

The way to solve this and break the Liberal filibuster against giving up the documents is for them to give them up without redactions. It is the easiest way for the House to get back to dealing with the issues that Canadians are concerned about, such as the doubling of housing costs, with mortgages and rent, and the tripling of the carbon tax to 61¢ a litre. Is everybody aware that the Liberals plan to increase the carbon tax? I can just see the Liberals' campaign slogan now: “Re-elect us and we will put taxes up to 61¢ a litre.” I think it is a winner. We can just ask Joe Clark how that worked out for him in 1980.

We have a group of Liberals who are so desperate to cover up all the emails between former Liberal minister Navdeep Bains and the current industry minister, who has been responsible for the Liberal green slush fund for 45 months. They are trying to hide those documents. They have kept the House from getting to the business of actually dealing with issues for three months: September, October and into November as of today. We must hold the government to account for failing to deal with two million people a month going to food banks in Canada, for tripling the carbon tax, for increasing the cost of food and for its massively unsuccessful housing decelerator fund, in which it has spent billions of dollars to hire bureaucrats and not built a single house.

We could get to those things if the Liberals would stop filibustering and obey the House order of a democratically elected Parliament. As has been the case for over 400 years, when the House asks for something, the government is compelled to give it. It must really be bad for them to delay what they think is their priority legislation and to continue their filibuster on releasing the documents.

We all know that we would like the House to get on to the plan of fixing the budget. We have a Minister of Finance who has never met a target, nor did her predecessor, former minister “Bill no more”. They have never met a target. She said that the government was going to keep it to a $40-billion deficit, as if it were some sort of a challenge to spend only $40 billion more than the taxes it takes in. She could not even do that. She is over by $8 billion already, and we are not even through the year. We can imagine what it is going to be in the spring, when the final numbers come in about the incompetence of the government's financial ability. Maybe that is why it is delaying the release of the documents, so it cannot be held to account for its incompetence on fixing the budget.

Now let us talk about the government's inability to build homes. It brags about the billions of dollars in its housing accelerator fund, which has not built a house. That is why I call it the “decelerator” fund. My home province is Nova Scotia. The Minister of Housing is from Nova Scotia, but we would not know it. Maybe we would, because he gave $30 million of housing decelerator money to the City of Halifax. How many houses did it build? It built zero. How many people did it hire? It hired 30 more urban planners to make sure it could slow the housing process down. That is why it is the housing decelerator fund. The government is refusing to release the documents on the green slush fund so that it cannot be held to account for its ineptitude on housing.

We know that crime has massively gone up. In the city of Toronto, in the large cities and even in Nova Scotia, we are seeing the massive thefts of cars. People are being told by the Toronto police to just leave their keys by the door so that thieves do not come in and maybe harm them. They are told to let them take their car because that would be easier than them enforcing the law. What would be easier to ensure that this does not happen is to not let people who are charged with the theft of automobiles, who have been convicted time after time, out on bail.

The other election slogan of the government, other than that it will raise the tax to 61¢ a litre, will be to re-elect it so it can allow more criminals on the streets. However, it does not want us discussing those issues in the House. That is why it is not releasing the documents. It needs to stop the crime.

Let us not forget about the tax that is putting the price of everything up: the carbon tax. We believe it should axe the tax, but the government does not want to be held to account for that. Here is what happens. For 20 years, I worked in retail. I can tell members that, when one buys a good from somebody who has to manufacture it, producing that good takes a lot of energy. When it takes a lot of energy, there is a carbon tax on that, which increases the price of buying that good. One of the biggest costs in retail is the cost to transport that good from where it was made to our stores. Can members guess what is used to transport it? It is diesel and gas, not sailboats or bicycles. We cannot use the Minister of Environment's bicycles to truck a container of rum to Nova Scotia; it has to come by truck or boat. That fuel gets taxed, which increases the price. Of course, when one operates 100 or 1,000 mass market retail stores across Canada, can we guess what one's number one cost is besides labour? It is not the rent; it is paying for the energy to operate that store. Because the energy costs are there, the carbon tax is put on that. When we tax the manufacturer or the grower, tax the transportation and tax the retailer, can we guess what happens? The price of everything goes up. According to Dalhousie University, 84% of Canadians say that food is the number one thing they have seen go up.

This Liberal filibuster could end and we could get on to dealing with these issues if the Liberals would stop covering up their green slush fund and release the unredacted documents.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned “filibuster” several times. I just looked it up and the definition of filibuster is “an action such as a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in a legislative assembly while not technically contravening the required procedures.” The only people I see speaking here are the Conservatives, so it is the Conservatives who are filibustering.

The member also mentioned rents. A recent report showed that in Toronto, in August, rent was down 7% compared to the same month in 2023. Maybe the Conservatives do not want to discuss the Bloomberg-Nanos research that showed this week that the consumer confidence index in Canada is at a 30-month high. Maybe the Conservatives do not want to discuss the recent StatsCan report that showed inflation came down 1.6%. Maybe the Conservatives do not want to discuss the Bank of Canada cutting the interest rate for the fourth consecutive time, the first G7 country to do so, to 3.75%.

Maybe the Conservatives do not want to discuss all the positive reports coming out as they are filibustering here.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nepean sits on the industry committee with me and does ask thoughtful questions at committee, but unfortunately that was not one of them.

The reason it was not one of them is that for things to go down, they have to have gone up. Under these Liberals, interest rates soared because they have doubled the debt of the country and because they put too much money into the economy through their deficit spending.

The member also mentioned that rent has gone down 7% in Toronto. Rent has gone up 100% in Toronto, but the Liberals are proud that it has gone down 7%. I am thrilled that the member for Nepean thinks that a 93% rent increase is some sort of great record to go to an election on. I am looking forward to the Toronto MP saying, “Re-elect us, rent only went up 93%.”

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, have you observed if there is quorum in the House this morning?

And the count having been taken:

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

We do not have a quorum. We are suspended to the call of the Chair.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

We now have quorum.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. We agree that the government should stop hiding and hand over the documents. We know that corruption is in the Liberals' DNA. That is nothing new. We all remember the sponsorship scandal.

However, there is something else that Quebeckers remember. When the Conservative Party was in power, a question of privilege was raised regarding documents on the treatment of Afghan detainees. Do members know how long that question of privilege was before the House? It was before the House for five months. For five months, the Harper government at the time refused to turn over the documents.

I would like my colleague to explain that. He is trying to sell us on the merits of his party, but how can Quebeckers trust that party today when it broke their trust for five months by refusing to hand over documents? I am, of course, referring to the Conservative Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great question in the context of the early excuse that the Liberals used for not turning over the documents in the green slush fund. They came up with a fake charter argument, saying that the only way documents could be turned over to the RCMP was if the RCMP went to court, which is one way in a police investigation. However, the other way is when someone owns or runs a business and discovers that perhaps something has happened to the money, that an employee has taken money from their company. The individual who owns or runs a business not only can turn that information and the documents over to the police, but is morally bound to do so. In this case, we, the House of Commons, on behalf of the taxpayer, own the SDTC foundation. The government is the owner of that business and therefore has the obligation to turn the documents over to the police.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I know that you just did a count but I am wondering if you can see if we have quorum.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I will ask the clerk to start another count of the members present.

And the count having been taken:

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

We now have quorum.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad you found the Conservatives hiding behind the curtains there.

I am always amazed at how Conservatives, during their speeches regarding the cost of living crisis, will ignore the elephant in the room. I have been on the agriculture committee, and if we look at the inputs that farmers are dealing with, we see that all of the major corporate sectors have seen record profits over the last number of years. Whether fertilizers, oil and gas, grocery retail, banking or real estate, all of those major corporate sectors have been doing very well. Where has that increase in net profits come from? It comes directly out of the wallets of the hard-working folks right across this country, including my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. Of course, when corporations unfairly raise those prices and increase those net profits, that is what leads to inflation.

Why is there this willful blindness to not talk about this particular issue? Is it because many of the corporate executives in those sectors making record profits somehow find themselves at Conservative leadership fundraisers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford's raising the elephant in the room.

The elephant in the room is this: Why has the NDP voted 24 times to increase the carbon tax? Why did the NDP, for two and a half years, support every budget of the current government, which put up the cost of everything in this country? Why did the NDP do a fake rip-up of its coalition agreement and then still vote every single time to support the government? Why has the NDP decided, according to its leader this week, that it is in no hurry to go to an election? Might it be that his pension vests in February?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is something we do not want to be debating. It is the corruption of this government, and my colleague mentioned that 1,000 homes could be built in his riding. In Oshawa, people are suffering.

A supporter, Franco Terrazzano from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, sent me a note and I want my colleague's comment on this. Global Affairs is now spending $51,000 a month on alcohol, so that is $600,000 a year on booze. This seems to be business as usual for the Liberals and the government.

I want to ask my colleague this: Is it not about time that we axed the tax so we can build more homes, fix that budget finally, and of course, stop the horrible crime that this government is basically enabling around the country?

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

Mr. Speaker, prior to elected life, I was in the retail business of selling alcohol, so far be it for me to diminish the great benefit of anybody buying alcohol for their business, but in this case, it is on the taxpayer dime. There is no entitlement like a foreign diplomat's entitlement to have a good time on the taxpayer dime around the country, while Canadians suffer and are unable to afford to heat, eat and house themselves.

As such, I appreciate that Oshawa is suffering, and Oshawa is suffering because we have a failed auto policy by this government as well, which does not seem to care about auto workers, union workers or, quite frankly, any jobs in this country, other than their own and funnelling $400 million to their own companies.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to reflect on some of his comments.

He calls this a Liberal filibuster, but I invite everybody at home looking at this to go back through ParlVU and see who has been doing all the talking for the last four weeks. As well, if we look at the cost of running this chamber at about $60,000 an hour with all in, we are dealing with almost two million dollars' worth of taxpayers' funds that the Conservatives have basically talked down the sewer. Is the member ready to be straight with Canadians about what is really going on here?

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

Mr. Speaker, what is really going on here is the inability or unwillingness of the government to hand over documents that are uncensored because they are protecting their friends and trying to hide that the $400-million corruption is really $700 million, according to the Auditor General's math.

What is really incredible is that the Liberals claim they are not speaking. I think the Liberal member for Winnipeg North has spoken about 324 times on this issue. I am glad that this member finally got to speak once.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise here again and to talk about the SDTC scandal we have been seized with now for maybe three weeks.

I am here today in the House to discuss a shocking misuse of taxpayers' dollars. Four hundred million dollars has been wasted, while the cost of living is up, food bank usage is up, the carbon tax is up and the Liberal government has an $8 billion budget overrun, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

As many Canadians are aware, the House has been seized with the issue for many weeks. There have been no debates of government bills and no debates on private members' bills because the issue is so important that it must take precedence over all other business and because the Liberal government has refused to comply with a lawful order of the House of Commons.

Many of my constituents may be wondering why I am speaking to the privilege motion for a second time. To explain, I am rising today to speak in support of an amendment to the privilege motion moved by the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle on the failure to produce documents pertaining to the Sustainable Development Technology Canada scandal.

For the benefit of other members and for people watching at home, I will read the motion and the amendments. The motion states:

That the government's failure of fully providing documents, as ordered by the House on June 10, 2024, be hereby referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs;

The amendment reads:

provided that it be an instruction to the committee:

(a) that the following witnesses be ordered to appear before the committee, separately, for two hours each:

(i) the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry,

(ii) the Clerk of the Privy Council,

(iii) the Auditor General of Canada,

(iv) the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,

(v) the Deputy Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada,

(vi) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons,

(vii) the Acting President of Sustainable Development Technology Canada,

(viii) a panel consisting of the Board of Sustainable Development Technology Canada; and

(b) that it report back to the House no later than Friday, November 22, 2024.

The amendment really speaks to the heart of the issue, which is ministerial accountability. I feel that it is important for the benefit of members of this place to dig deep into what ministerial accountability is and why it is so important to the issue at hand.

When the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle raised his initial privilege motion, he referred to a document obtained from the Privy Council office, which states, “Public servants do not share in Ministers’ constitutional accountability to Parliament but support Ministers in this accountability.” It also states that the ultimate accountability for deciding what information to withhold from or release to parliamentarians resides with the responsible minister.

I agree with this; it really is the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry who is ultimately responsible for the scandal and for the violation of an order of the House. The minister must be held accountable, and that is why it is so important that he hand over the documents and appear at committee.

I will now discuss the origin of ministerial accountability and its relevance to today's debate at length.

To really dig into what ministerial accountability is and what it ought to mean, we can refer to the Prime Minister's own document released on November 27, 2015, when the Liberals formed government for the first time under the current Prime Minister. The document, or guide, is entitled “Open and Accountable Government”. It supposedly sets out core principles regarding the roles and responsibilities of ministers in Canada's system of responsible parliamentary government. This includes the central tenet of ministerial responsibility, both individual and collective, as well as ministers' relations with the Prime Minister and cabinet, their portfolios and Parliament.

I think this is very fascinating. I will read from the Prime Minister's opening message to the ministers. He says:

In our system, the highest manifestation of democratic accountability is the forum of Parliament. You are accountable to Parliament for the exercise of the powers, duties and functions with which you have been entrusted. This requires you to be present in Parliament to answer honestly and accurately about your areas of responsibility, to take corrective action as appropriate to address problems that may arise in your portfolios, to correct any inadvertent errors in answering to Parliament at the earliest opportunity, and to work with parliamentary colleagues of all political persuasions in a respectful and constructive manner.

He goes on to say, and this is my favourite part:

You are responsible for ensuring that your departments are managed well and with complete integrity....

The Prime Minister went on to detail what ministerial accountability meant to him. He states:

Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the exercise of the powers, duties and functions vested in them by statute or otherwise. Ministers must be present in Parliament to respond to questions on the discharge of their responsibilities, including the manner in which public monies were spent, as well as to account for that use. Whether a Minister has discharged responsibilities appropriately is a matter of political judgment by Parliament. The Prime Minister has the prerogative to reaffirm support for that Minister or to ask for his or her resignation.

It is critical to the principle of responsible government that all organizations within the executive be the responsibility of a Minister who is accountable to Parliament for the organization. A Minister is accountable to Parliament for the proper functioning of his or her department and all other organizations within his or her portfolio.

I rarely think or say this, but I completely agree with the Prime Minister: Ministers should be “accountable to Parliament” and “must be present in Parliament to respond to questions on the discharge of their responsibilities, including the manner in which public monies are spent, as well as to account for that use.” I will go on to discuss why this is relevant to the amendment and the issue at hand today.

I would like to remind members in this place exactly how much money was misappropriated by the board of the Sustainable Technology Development Canada Fund. When I speak to constituents, many of them draw comparisons to the sponsorship scandal. I have to remind them that the Liberal sponsorship scandal was a $40-million scandal, one that led to the complete collapse of the Liberal Party because of how egregious the misuse of funds was.

My constituents are baffled when I inform them that the current one is a $400-million scandal, $400 million of taxpayer funds while rents are at an all-time high, mortgage payments have doubled and Canadians cannot even afford to feed their family. It is scandalous, and that is why Conservatives will keep pressing the government on the issue until the taxpayers' funds are repaid and the documents have been handed over.

It is unfortunate that hundreds of millions of wasted taxpayer dollars means nothing to the Liberal government. We saw the indifference that the Liberals displayed when it was revealed that $56 million was wasted on the ArriveCAN app, an application that did not work. Conservatives had hoped that the Liberal government had learned its lesson when that scandal occurred, yet here we are again, embroiled in another costly scandal.

What got us to this point was the Auditor General's conclusion that SDTC board members and officials broke conflict of interest laws 186 times and funnelled $400 million of taxpayers' money to their own companies. This unprecedented waste of taxpayer dollars and the Minister of Industry's refusal to be held to account for the issue are shocking.

The common-sense Conservative amendment we are discussing today explicitly demands that the minister attend committee for two hours and answer for the failure. I would hope that members on all sides of the House would like to see the minister take responsibility for the scandals and failures of his department. The Prime Minister's own document entitled “Open and Accountable Government”, which I referred to earlier, would seem to indicate that is what he ought to do.

Now, for the benefit of my constituents and all Canadians who have been very curious about the issue, I will walk members through the timeline of this particular scandal. We know that Sustainable Development Technology Canada was a not-for-profit foundation that was established by the Government of Canada in 2001 through a special act of Parliament, the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology Act.

SDTC was created to support and finance clean-technology start-ups, with the goal of delivering economic, environmental and health benefits to Canada. By all accounts, the fund ran well and had zero issues for 17 years, that is until Navdeep Bains, the former Liberal industry minister, decimated the fund and brought in an era of corruption. In late 2018, former minister Bains expressed concerns regarding the chair of SDTC, Jim Balsillie, given his public criticism of the Liberal government's privacy legislation.

Jim Balsillie is a widely respected Canadian businessman who is the former chair and CEO of BlackBerry. He was appointed as chair of SDTC in 2013, during the Harper government, for a term of five years. However, in 2018, the office of then Liberal minister of industry, Navdeep Bains, expressed discomfort about Balsillie's comments with the CEO of SDTC and requested that the chair stop criticizing government legislation. Minister Bains proposed two replacement chairs to the CEO of SDTC in a phone call. One of the candidates proposed was Annette Verschuren, an entrepreneur who was already already receiving SDTC funding through one of her companies.

The minister, the PMO and the PCO were warned of the risks associated with appointing a conflicted chair, and they were told that up until that point the fund had never had a chair with interests in companies receiving funding from SDTC. In June 2019, Minister Bains decided to proceed with the appointment of Annette Verschuren despite repeated warnings expressed to his office. The new chair went on to create an environment where conflicts of interests were tolerated and “managed” by board members.

Board members went on to award SDTC funding to companies in which board members held stock or positions within the company receiving funding. Minister Bains went on to appoint two other controversial board members who engaged in unethical behaviour in breach of the Conflict of Interest Act by approving funding to companies in which they held ownership stakes. During this time, ISED officials sat in on the board meetings and witnessed 186 conflicts at the board but did not intervene.

That brings us to January 2021, when the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain became the new Minister of Industry, replacing Navdeep Bains after the latter decided not to run for re-election. In November 2022, whistle-blowers raised internal concerns with the Auditor General about unethical practices at SDTC. The Privy Council was briefed by the whistle-blowers about the allegations shortly after and commissioned two independent reports.

In September 2023, the whistle-blowers took the allegations public, and the Minister of Industry agreed to suspend SDTC funding. Finally, in June 2024, the Auditor General's report was released, finding severe governance failures at SDTC. The Auditor General found that there were 186 instances in which conflicts of interest occurred, meaning that the board of directors and the chair had hand-picked where funding was going. Some of that funding went to their own companies. The Auditor General took only a sampling of the funding and found that 82% of that sampling was in a conflict of interest, totalling $330 million.

The Auditor General also found that SDTC did not follow conflict of interest policies in 90 cases, spent nearly $76 million on projects connected to the Liberals' friends appointed to run the fund, spent $59 million on projects that were not allowed to have been awarded any money, and spent $12 million on projects that were both in conflict of interest and were ineligible for funding. In one instance, the hand-picked chair of the fund gave a shocking $217,000 to her own company.

In response to the damning findings, in June, Conservatives put forward a motion calling on the government to provide to the House documents pertaining to SDTC. The motion included provisions for the documents to then be provided to the RCMP so it could undertake a criminal investigation on whether criminal offences were committed. The Liberal government has refused to hand over the documents, and that is why we are still here discussing the motion today.

I would now like to share some of the testimony that the SDTC whistle-blower gave at committee. I find the testimony to be astounding and I commend the witness for their bravery. The whistle-blower stated:

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.

He went on to say:

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.

Another quote I find astounding is:

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.

Finally, and this is the quote that really gets to the root of the issue:

...I think the current government is more interested in protecting themselves and protecting the situation from being a public nightmare. They would rather protect wrongdoers and financial mismanagement than have to deal with a situation like SDTC in the public sphere.

It is because of brave whistle-blowers such as this individual that the public was able to see the corruption and rot that the Liberal government had allowed to fester at SDTC. Conservatives commend this individual and thank him for standing up for Canadians. As I just mentioned, this brave whistle-blower believes that criminal intent would be found if the documents the Conservatives have requested were to be handed over to the RCMP. That is why it is so important that the Liberal government comply with the House order and release the documents.

In closing, we are still here today discussing this issue after a month because the government refuses to comply with an order of the House. We are calling on the government to comply with the House's order and hand over the documents unredacted. Then we can find out what really went on and whether there was any criminality, which former employees at SDTC believe there was.

I will end by saying that, after nine years of the Liberal government, there has never been a better time to be a Liberal insider. Under the Liberal government, Liberal insiders feel it is perfectly acceptable to waste $400 million of taxpayer funds while Canadians are struggling. This is a slap in the face to the people in my riding of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte who are struggling to make ends meet under the costly NDP-Liberal coalition.

Just this week, Karen Shuh, the executive director of the Barrie Food Bank, stated that the food bank is now supporting upward of 7,000 people per month, 37% of whom are children. Ms. Shuh went on to say, “As demand continues to rise, we face increasing challenges in keeping up, often needing to make difficult choices about which foods to cut in order to stretch our donations further.”

Canadians in my community are visiting food banks in record numbers because the Liberal government's inflationary taxes and spending are driving up the cost of everything, and instead of providing Canadians with the relief they deserve, the Liberal government plans to hike the carbon tax again. This costly carbon tax is not only affecting families but also farmers in my community.

I was recently sent an Enbridge bill for almost $10,000 from a farmer in my riding who runs a poultry operation. Their bill shows a carbon tax charge of $2,700 on the cost of fuel to dry grain corn. Shockingly, the carbon tax is actually more than the value of the gas before delivery and global adjustments.

Moving to the poultry side of their operation, this farm pays a comparable tax on the cost to heat their barns. Every 24 weeks, they place over 3,000 day-old breeder chicks in their barns. These barns need to be heated to 32°C as the chicks are so small they cannot heat themselves. This temperature is slowly reduced as the chicks grow stronger. The cost to heat the barns during this placement is approximately $7,000, with approximately a third of that cost being the carbon tax.

During this affordability crisis, one would think that the Liberals would think twice about allowing Liberal insiders to funnel $400 million to their buddies. Unfortunately, they see no issue with this corruption.

I have heard from countless businesses in my riding that have suffered due to inflation, labour shortages, supply chain issues, increasing business debt and federal tax increases. It is devastating to see these businesses, which bring joy to so many members of my community, suffer under the Liberal government's punitive policies.

However, Canadians have something to look forward to. They can look forward to voting for a common-sense Conservative government as the costly NDP stops propping up its government partners and calls a carbon tax election. In this carbon tax election, Canadians would have the opportunity to vote for Conservatives, who would axe the tax, build the homes and fix the budget to bring down inflation and interest rates to make it affordable again for our seniors and all Canadians.

To those watching at home, I say that help is on the way. Once we have a carbon tax election, a common-sense Conservative government would axe the tax on everything, for everyone, everywhere, to bring home powerful paycheques and lower prices for all Canadians.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned inflation.

In 2022, due to the postpandemic period and global supply chain issues, inflation rose across the world, in every single country. Due to our actions during the last two years, the trend of inflation is coming down so much. It has come down to 1.6% below the target range of the Bank of Canada. Every other country has had to raise interest rates to combat inflation, but we are the first G7 country to cut interest rates for the fourth consecutive time and have brought it down to 3.75%. Consequently, the Canadian consumer confidence index is at a 30-month high. I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on that.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I am hearing in my riding of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte is not good news. Yes, interest rates have come down, but they were way high. What I am hearing is that people are having a tough time surviving and living right now.

I had a call just a couple of weeks ago from a lady who has a child with special needs. This lady has now stopped eating lunch because she has to help feed and support her special needs child. If the member thinks I can go back to her and say the Liberals think everything is all rosy, that interest rates are down and that is why she not eating lunch, it will just not cut it with her. People are suffering out there. My constituents are suffering, and there is a lot more to it than just interest rates coming down.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Parliament is paralyzed right now. Our rights as legislators are being violated by the Conservative Party, which is filibustering on a question of privilege. We must be accountable to the public.

What do people think?

In my colleague's riding, are people happy about the fact that the government has been paralyzed for weeks?

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am astounded to hear that the member thinks that Conservatives are holding up Parliament. Conservatives are not holding up Parliament. There was a ruling to produce documents, and the Liberals can smile all they want, but I do not know what is funny about this. I have constituents who are struggling, who cannot feed their families, and $400 million has been wasted.

There is a ruling that the documents must be produced. The Speaker of the House of Commons has sided with that ruling. This will stop once the documents are brought forward. It is my second time standing up and speaking to this for 20 minutes.

There are lots of things we could be discussing as there are many important issues, but this is an important issue. Until we get the documents, until Canadians get the documents, we will continue to press this serious issue.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in Ontario, we did not have the carbon tax. We got the carbon tax because the Conservatives, under Doug Ford, ditched the cap-and-trade and cost us $2 billion to get out of that, which gave us the carbon tax, just like the Conservatives gave us the GST and the HST. Also, when they added the HST, they added things that had been exempt before, such as parking at hospitals.

What other hidden taxes are the Conservatives going to bring in that they do not campaign on but that they would actually deliver for Canadians?

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to indulge in conspiracy theories. The facts are facts.

Queen's Park in Toronto runs provincial issues. We are here, in Ottawa, running federal issues. I know that, once there is an election, and hopefully it will be soon, as do all my constituents, Conservatives will be in power under Pierre Poilievre. We will cut—