Debates of Nov. 21st, 2024

The House resumed from November 20 consideration of the motion, of the amendment as amended and of the amendment to the amendment.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Don Stewart, Conservative, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this place to speak out and defend the interests of not just the people of Toronto—St. Paul's but also all of Canada. These are the Canadians who are not Liberal insiders and did not profit from the largesse of the government in its misallocation of capital through the Sustainable Development Technology Canada program.

I am standing here today to address an issue that has left Canadians poorer and that has left Canadians shaking their heads and questioning the direction of the Liberal government, which has failed our environment. The government has failed to be accountable; most importantly, it has failed the people of Canada. However, the NDP-Liberal government members sit upright in their respective seats as if there is nothing to see here.

In fact, there is less than nothing to see here. There is a vacuous void of taxpayer dollars, which have vanished into the pockets of friends and insiders. For years, the Prime Minister has positioned himself as the champion of the environment, saying that his government works hard to fight climate change. He continues to claim that he has lowered emissions while investing in Canada's economy, but can we guess what? The Liberal government tries to gaslight Canadians into thinking it is leading the way on climate action, but it actually cannot even hit its own emissions targets.

The only thing Liberals seem to be investing in is their own pockets and their own futures, at the expense of Canadians. I campaigned for this role because I am worried about the finances of this country and what they mean for our children's futures, our children's children's futures, the futures of their kids and so on. The NDP government, led by the Prime Minister, has demonstrated a lack of financial—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is brand spanking new, and we are looking forward to the NDP government, but that will be in 2025. It is not an NDP government. He needs to correct the record because he—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We are venturing into debate.

The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in his earlier comments, the member for Timmins—James Bay used the term “total falsehood”, which I think may be unparliamentary. I am not certain of that, but if it is, it would be a good idea for him to withdraw it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

There is a whole bunch of reasons I should not have heard this at all.

The hon. member for Victoria.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the point of order that my hon. colleague from Timmins—James Bay raised, when inaccurate information is repeatedly put on the record, which has been the case with the Conservatives time and time again, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, chapter 3, says, “It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference [and so on].... However, some matters found to be prima facie include the...provision of misleading information”, which I think this is an example of now.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I will have a look at that and come back if I need to.

The hon. member for Toronto—St. Paul's.

[Don Stewart, Conservative, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government, supported by the NDP and led by the Prime Minister, has demonstrated a lack of financial acumen, with the case in point being the mismanagement of the green slush fund. The green slush fund, with its mismanagement, waste of tax dollars and rewarding of friends and insiders, represents the overall style and approach to governing by the Liberal government.

I am new here, as we have just heard, and I may never have been in government. This was well pointed out by the Minister of Housing a few days ago as he answered a softball question posed by the member for Don Valley East in an unsuccessful attempt to throw me under the bus. The tenor of the question was about my commitment to the people of Toronto—St. Paul's because I did not advocate for a $471-million transfer to the city to increase housing. That $471 million is about $40,000 per home that the city state it could build. Let us remember that number. The fact is that after that $471 million, housing starts have declined in Toronto. Where is the accountability?

That means wasted money and misallocated resources, resulting in a drag on GDP. It is the same result from the same government, and that is bad for the people of Toronto writ large and bad for the people of Toronto—St. Paul's. However, we have a solution to the loose-wallet Liberal largesse: Let us cut the GST on homes under $1 million. The quick math is that on a home of $800,000, a buyer would save $40,000 from a GST cut, which is the same amount the city got for the decline in starts. Who wants the money? Is it the people or the government? Unlike the Minister of Finance and unlike the housing minister, who prefer to give money away to projects with dubious outcomes, I have a background in finance, so I know what the math says: The buyer of that $800,000 home will save somewhere between $100,000 and $150,000 over the term of a 25-year mortgage. That is the power of common sense and a GST cut.

Let us now return to the pressing issue of the slush fund. Sustainable Development Technology Canada was a federally funded not-for-profit organization whose purpose was to invest and support the development of new green technologies for a better environment. Fulfilling this purpose and supporting sustainable innovation would have been a great opportunity for the Liberal government to follow through on its promises to fight climate change. However, instead of a well-managed, respected organization to help Canadian companies develop sustainable green technologies, we have a Liberal green slush fund, a multi-billion dollar boondoggle filled with corruption, devoid of accountability and, most troubling of all, with no regard for the people who funded it: hard-working Canadian taxpayers.

We have heard countless promises from the Liberal government to take bold action on climate change and green innovation, but as time passes, it becomes clearer that these promises are hollow. The reality is that it appears the Liberals are only interested in making themselves and their friends rich. When the Liberals overtook SDTC, it was never about green energy; it was about lining the pockets of Liberal insiders. As the Auditor General found, Liberal appointees gave 400 million taxpayer dollars to their own companies, involving 186 conflicts of interest. This was only a sample of the total mismanaged capital allocations.

Meanwhile, food bank visits are at an all-time high in my community. Constituents tell me they cannot afford the cost of living. That $400 million could have better benefited people in St. Paul's and elsewhere who are suffering from out-of-touch Liberal policies. Now the government is refusing to table the necessary documents in Parliament so that the RCMP can thoroughly investigate the corruption and scandal of the Prime Minister's slush fund.

Parliament has been stalled for numerous weeks because the Liberals refuse to hand over the documents. Parliament ordered the documents. Why is there such a lack of transparency surrounding these projects from the transparency Prime Minister? Why are we seeing such a rigorous lack of accountability for how taxpayer dollars are being spent? Well, as one SDTC whistle-blower said in committee:

...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.

That is from a whistle-blower. This is not a fabricated scandal. The whistle has been blown by courageous individuals who saw first-hand what was happening.

The Liberals do not want the public to find out that instead of investing in our farmers, who know a thing or two about stewarding the land, or supporting innovation that can improve the lives of Canadians, they used this fund as a slush pool for insiders. They do not want Canadians to know that instead of investing taxpayer dollars into the most promising projects and companies, the Liberals' hand-picked and hand-appointed chair and her board funnelled taxpayer dollars to projects and companies that were run by their friends or where they had a financial interest. It seems to me that the green part of SDTC is less about the environment and more about the colour of the cash lining the pockets of their friends.

One of the reasons my constituents elected me, according to what I have heard and am hearing when speaking to them in the community and at their doorsteps, is that I have experience in business. I think about that and I wonder, “What if somebody did this in a properly run public company? What would happen to that person once the paper trail was analyzed?” That person would be fired. It really makes us think: What fate awaits the Liberal government should it just hand over the documents and drive on? This is the kind of situation they teach us to avoid in any business school or ethics class. Perhaps our financial leaders on the other side of the House missed those classes.

Still, the misallocation of money leads to the destruction of capital in this country. This causes a loss of Canadian competitiveness, a reduction in productivity and a decline in GDP. These misallocations compound over time, just like the lost opportunity on the interest we all pay for our government debt, including on this $400 million. That is at least another $16 million per year, which could go a long way to solving issues in Toronto like gun crime. Instead, it is a drag on the economy.

Just a couple of weeks ago, StatsCan came out with the news of just how horrible the Canadian economy is under the Prime Minister and how the government's mismanagement has compounded the misery of the Canadian economy. For the eighth time in the last nine quarters, our per capita GDP has declined. It is also the fifth consecutive quarterly decline in per capita GDP. It has now fallen more than any other G7 country since 2019. In my analysis, that is a recession for most individuals, and the average Canadian is worse off.

This is the direct result of higher taxes on capital gains, on energy, on work and on just about everything else we buy. The government is driving out investment by hiking taxes on everything. That is indisputable. The community members I spoke about earlier tell me the same thing. The people I meet in St. Paul's on the doorsteps can see what is happening. In fact, they expressed their dissatisfaction this summer. After three decades, the people of Toronto—St. Paul's have asked for change.

The Greeks had a myth, the myth of King Midas, who was granted the power to turn anything he touched into gold. What a gift that would be. Ultimately, this became a liability for King Midas, as his greed led him to make foolish decisions on what he would turn into gold. His food, for example, turned into gold, so he could not eat; he was hungry. In another section of the Midas story, he becomes fearful of his power and embraces his beautiful daughter, who is immediately transformed into a golden statue. In his despair, he prays to Dionysus, who, to make a long story short, reverses the spell and all those golden objects are returned to their natural state. Midas went on to share his wealth with all and become a beloved king for the ages.

Unfortunately for the Liberal government, the green slush fund is not a myth and is not so easily reversed. Greed and its dangers were the moral of the Midas story, and what happens when we become beholden to our own selfish interests. As we have here, Liberal insiders turned dubious projects into gold for other Liberal insiders. Now, as with Midas, the Liberals in charge of the gold are finding out it was not, after all, free. The chickens are coming home to roost.

Incidentally, there is another version of the Midas story where he must judge a musical contest. However, when the gods are not happy with his choice of winner, his ears are turned into donkey ears, and he must run around with donkey ears tucked up under his hat hoping that no one will notice them. However, I digress.

The Liberal government's financial incompetence and corruption are causing a weak investment environment. People told me this weekend that they are not investing here because of the brutal tax regime. I am not making this up. Canadians are the ones who are suffering because of it. We on this side of the House believe in fiscal responsibility and that hard-working Canadians deserve to bring home powerful paycheques. We are not here to play games with tax dollars. We believe that if we are going to put our taxpayers' money toward green initiatives, they should be green with measurable outcomes.

At the heart of the issue of the green slush fund, in my view, is public trust. Canadians trust their governments to act in their best interest, to steward public funds responsibly and to be forthright about how decisions are made. When this trust is broken, it is incredibly difficult to rebuild, except perhaps by starting fresh with a new government.

The refusal to release the green slush fund documents erodes this trust. It sends a message to the public that their government is not interested in being transparent and that accountability is a secondary or tertiary concern. When citizens no longer trust their leaders, it weakens the bonds that hold our country together, and the consequences are severe. We are seeing them on a daily basis in our streets. As the SDTC whistle-blowers testified in committee:

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.

The green slush fund scandal is not just about a specific pool of money or a single government program; it is about the broader principles of transparency, accountability and trust, which are essential to a functioning democracy. When governments refuse to be transparent, they open the door to corruption and abuse of power, and when governments refuse to release documents that Parliament has requested, they betray the trust that underpins our system.

This is not the Liberals' Parliament; this is Canada's Parliament, the House of Commons, and we must not allow this to happen in Canada. As Parliamentarians, we all have a responsibility to demand better. We must hold our government accountable for its actions and ensure that transparency remains a central tenet of our democracy.

The controversy surrounding the green slush fund and the government's refusal to release key documents is a serious issue that deserves our full attention. It is not just about the management of public funds. It is about the mismanagement of the entire government. It is about the very nature of democracy itself. As Canadians, we must stand firm in our commitment to transparency and accountability. We must demand answers from our government, and we must not accept anything less than full disclosure. The future of our democracy and our trust in public institutions depends on it.

Earlier, I was asked not to call the government the NDP-Liberal government, but that is the way that my constituents and I see the government. It has been directed by the NDP's support of the Liberal Prime Minister. We have called this the NDP-Liberal government in the House for many weeks, and it has not been challenged to any success. I would argue that we should continue to use that recognition.

I will stand up for the people of Toronto—St. Paul's and let them know that, aside from the biggest issues we are seeing in Toronto—St. Paul's right now, which are crime and the cost of living crisis, this is all boiling down to what is happening with the mismanagement of the government. We have seen the umpteen scandals of the government, which come down to mismanagement. There was the WE scandal, the ArriveCAN scandal, the Aga Khan scandal and others, for which we have not seen proper management come forward. With the SDTC, we saw the Liberals hand money out to their friends and insiders when they appointed a hand-picked chair, who had connections to several of the companies inside that book of business.

I want to finish by saying this: We must demand answers from our government. We must not accept anything less than full disclosure. The will of Parliament must be respected. The future of our democracy depends on it.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is new to the House, and I want to welcome him here. What a terrible example we are showing a new member of this House by tying up the House and our government, which has been going on for six weeks now.

The other terrible example that we are showing him is this: Are the members on that side allowed to speak up? We just went through the housing accelerator program. The Leader of the Opposition has told his MPs that they cannot advocate for it. Clearly, there are some across the aisle here who advocated for it, some who did not and some who wanted to but cannot say anything about it. Again, what a terrible example we are giving.

One thing I want to hone in on is what the member for Kingston and the Islands talked about when presenting his petition, which was that the leader of the Conservative Party will not get his security clearance. He has painted himself into a corner. We know that. If any one thing is growing across this country, it is the concern about the leader not getting his security clearance.

I would ask the member opposite to please talk to his leader and give him some advice about getting his security clearance so we can move on and he can protect Canadians and his party.

[Don Stewart, Conservative, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, anyone who reads the popular newspapers in the country would have seen the editorial this week that laid the blame for the seizure of Parliament directly at the feet of the government. Therefore, I take issue with trying to put the responsibility on the Conservative Party, when the popular press out there knows and sees what is actually happening here in the House of Commons.

I may be new here, but I can identify a breach of trust when I see one, and this is one we are seeing here with the Liberal government not bringing forth the documents that Parliament asked for.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely, and I agree with the issues of transparency, accountability and trust, which is why there is a deep concern with respect to the member who lives in a giant house in Stornoway. The Liberals have said that he will not get a security clearance. I wonder if he can get a security clearance. We saw three times when the Conservatives voted against Ukraine. Now there are serious allegations about Modi.

I would refer to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who I have enormous respect for, who explained why the member will not get a security clearance. He said, “security clearances involve a rigorous process that includes...checks on family members, credit and criminal checks and...questions about one's sexual partners or whether they ever used drugs.” That is the Conservative member we trust the most who said that that was the reason the member living in Stornoway will not get it.

Every other leader who has ever served this country was not afraid to get it, so would the member tell us what is being hidden in that closet in Stornoway? Will he explain why that member cannot get it? Is it him, or is it his family members? There is something that stinks to high heaven. Even the member for Wellington—Halton Hills calls in the family on this. I think we need to know. Why can he not get a security clearance? Is it because we are looking at the Modi Conservatives?

[Don Stewart, Conservative, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also admire our member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

I would direct the member opposite to listen to what his former leader, Mr. Mulcair, said, which was that, if he was in the same position, he would do exactly the same thing. He would not want to be muzzled by—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Rising on a point of order, the hon. member for Victoria.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the Conservatives are taking advice from Thomas Mulcair now.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

That is debate.

The hon. member for Toronto—St. Paul's.

[Don Stewart, Conservative, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have had multiple leaders of opposition parties declare that they would also not get security clearance and be muzzled at a time when it would be deservedly better not to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Far be it for me to have to stand up and defend former members, but I do believe that Mr. Mulcair did have security clearance.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

That is debate.

The hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. One of the things he talked about was the cost of living. It seems to concern him a great deal. At the same time, we have concrete proposals here on the table, in the House of Commons, but nothing can move forward because of the current situation in the House. This will certainly have an impact.

In Quebec, there is no doubt about it. Farmers are telling us that the purpose of supply management is to protect Quebec's agricultural system. That is what feeds us. If we let this go and fail to ensure that everyone in the Senate and the House of Commons works together, the cost of food will be affected. We have to maintain our support for Bill C-282 to protect our supply management.

I introduced a bill that would improve seniors' financial security by increasing old age security for people aged 65 to 74, but they still have not received anything. Why not focus on these concrete solutions to help address the cost of living instead of relying on the kind of electioneering, one-time mini-measures that the government is planning?

[Don Stewart, Conservative, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we talked about earlier, the seizure of Parliament is at the feet of the Liberal members. If they were to produce the documents, the business of Parliament could get going. We could have a full and wholesome debate on these issues.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member for Toronto—St. Paul's. What is astonishing to note is that this is not an isolated incident. This is a pattern that we have seen from the government, a pattern of corruption and of ethically challenged governance.

Could the member expand further on the history of the Liberal Party and all of the challenges that it has found itself in from an ethical standpoint?

[Don Stewart, Conservative, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, I have a background in finance, so I see how a lot of these things manifest themselves in the economy and in our decline in GDP. When we see the dollars of the country being mismanaged, such as with SDTC, ArriveCAN and other things, these compound one another.

When we waste $400 million on SDTC, that is money out the door. That is money that is being added to the debt side of the balance sheet of the country. At today's rates, we are paying another $16 million a year just on that one thing alone. If we had that money back in our pockets, back in our treasury, members can imagine the good things we could do with it.

I would leave it up to people at home who are watching to think about how they could spend that $6 million to improve their community. In St. Paul's, I think we would talk about reducing gun crime and other crime on our streets.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's remarks. The other day, his colleague said that there are two reasons Conservatives are engaging in this extended filibuster. The first was to hold the government accountable for these documents, but the second was the added benefit of not allowing any other work to be done in this place. I find that second comment rather troubling.

The NDP wants to get to the bottom of this issue concerning the SDTC documents, but I am starting to think that the best thing to do would be to vote for this motion to send this to committee, where we could call witnesses and get the actual facts about what has gone on.

Does it not seem like that would be a better option?