House of Commons Hansard #374 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was liberals.

Topics

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:50 p.m.

Independent

Kevin Vuong Independent Spadina—Fort York, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is insane that the federal government has extended not only taxpayer dollars but charitable status to organizations that are fronts for the Chinese Communist Party. What is the incentive? What is the motivation? Is it because the government benefits in some way? As we heard at the Hogue inquiry, members of the Liberal caucus and their party benefited from help to secure nominations and fundraising.

What is the motivation? Why have the Liberals dragged their feet for as long as they have? What are they afraid of? Why are they scared to come out and name the 11 parliamentarians? They continue to focus on this issue of a security clearance, but we do not need a security clearance to know that 11 parliamentarians have been named. Not only was this found at the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, but it was validated by the Hogue inquiry. It has been validated by multiple news report.

What we need to know is why the Prime Minister refuses to name those 11 members. What is he so afraid of?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, through foreign interference, a Canadian was assassinated, many Canadians are being extorted and the leadership of the Conservative Party is being manipulated. Also, China and Russia are spending gobs of money to try to discredit the Prime Minister to the advantage of the Conservative Party.

However, the leader of the Conservative Party is saying he does not care and does not want a security clearance. He does not want to know. Does he really not want to know, or is he scared to tell Canadians what in his background is preventing him from getting a security clearance? Why is the member defending the Conservative leader? He is saying it is okay; we do not have to be concerned about foreign interference.

Is the member concerned about foreign interference? If he is, he should not be supporting the Conservative leader.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

The Acting Speaker Bloc Gabriel Ste-Marie

Order. I would ask members who do not have the floor to please show some decorum and respect, especially when the Chair is speaking.

The hon. member for Spadina—Fort York.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:50 p.m.

Independent

Kevin Vuong Independent Spadina—Fort York, ON

Mr. Speaker, I hosted a press conference just a couple weeks ago where we brought in an investigative journalist who has been at the forefront of identifying foreign interference. We also brought in the former Asia Pacific desk chief at CSIS and brought in a sinologist. They are all experts in identifying Chinese foreign interference. At that press conference, names were named, and one of the names raised was that of the international trade minister. The minister sits on the side opposite with the member.

The Liberals raise the issue of foreign interference, but who is the one truly not taking it seriously? They bring up the Conservative leader, but he himself has said to name the names. I am paraphrasing, but essentially he said that he does not care which party they are in. That is because our democracy and the integrity of this place and our country go beyond partisanship.

That should matter more than whoever they are, because we need to root out these traitors. They are a cancer on our democracy. We need to remove them and shine a light into the shadows where foreign operatives hide.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I felt compelled to rise today because of the member's speech. I really appreciate the speech he gave.

I want to apologize to him on behalf of the House for the comments he endured during question period today. They were beyond the pale of anything I have seen in the House so far, and he did not deserve that. Frankly, I think the Speaker should have the member who made those comments, a minister of the government, removed from the House for a period of time for saying heinous things about another member that are, frankly, untrue.

I will ask a question, because it is incumbent upon me to ask a question at this point in time.

The member knows both what is required to be a member of Parliament as far as a security clearance goes and what is required by the military regarding security clearances. Does he think anything could be accomplished, outside of muzzling the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition in the questions he gets to ask the government, without the security clearance the Leader of the Opposition already has? He is just playing his constitutional role.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

12:55 p.m.

Independent

Kevin Vuong Independent Spadina—Fort York, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a security clearance as a result of my role as a naval reserve officer. It is a very rigorous process to go through. There are requirements, for anyone who has clearance, when accessing certain information, and they include, to put it simply, muzzling the ability to use it.

The role of the official opposition, as the Liberals know full well, is to hold the government to account, but getting into the trap they are trying to set up for the leader of the official opposition to get a a security clearance would prohibit him from doing his duty of holding the government to account. Let us instead focus on the fact that the Prime Minister does not need a security clearance to name the names. He, as the Prime Minister, has the ability to declassify all of that.

He was able to go to the Hogue inquiry and throw out there that he has, allegedly, seen some Conservative names. That is convenient. I thought we could not reveal anything because we need to protect intelligence and its methods, all of that. That does not seem to matter to the Liberals when it can be of potential partisan advantage to them to magically declassify things. It is just like what they alleged about India, only for the national security and intelligence adviser, last night, to completely walk that back, all at the expense of our country and our relationship with the largest democracy in the world.

Shame on the government.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

November 22nd, 2024 / 12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate rising in this chamber any opportunity I get. However, I wish I could say it was a pleasure to rise. Unfortunately, it is not this time. This is now my second opportunity to speak about the green slush fund scandal through SDTC, and frankly, I am hopeful the government will finally come to its senses, listen to the will of the House and release the documents unredacted, as it has been called on to do, so that Parliament can move on.

As mentioned many times throughout the debate, this has led to a gridlock in Parliament. There are many things I would rather be discussing, such as our plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, but unfortunately these issues are now being halted because the government refuses to show transparency. I believe this process shows how little the Liberal government cares about this institution and the democracy it represents.

Just to highlight the situation from a broader lens, this democratically elected House ordered on behalf of Canadians that the government hand over all relevant documents related to the green slush fund scandal within 30 days of the order passing. That was on June 10 of this year. By my count, it is 166 days later, and the government still has not done so.

In my last speech on this matter, I raised a couple of issues. I will not repeat all of them, of course, but I do want to highlight some key points.

All of our constituents elected us to represent them and fight for their best interests. I believe that one of the paramount aspects of that is ensuring that we are spending tax dollars wisely. Unfortunately, we have not seen that from the NDP-Liberal government. We have not seen that in the way that it has run up deficits. The Prime Minister has added more debt than all previous prime ministers before him, which threatens the sustainability of social programs and government services for future generations. We have seen it in the way the government has continually hiked taxes on Canadians and driven up inflation, to the point where people are struggling to fill their gas tanks, heat their homes or put food on the table. Of course, we also see it with the green slush fund scandal. The government has shown no regard for the massive amount of taxpayer money that was given out inappropriately.

Instead, the government has worked very hard to try to cover up its scandal and has refused to hand over the documents we mentioned, violating the collective privilege that we as parliamentarians have to order documents to be revealed. This privilege is a crucial function for ensuring that the legislative branch of government can meet one of its main objectives, which is holding the government accountable. I spoke about that just a couple weeks ago. With this privilege comes extraordinary powers to ensure the government cannot interfere with us meeting that objective, and it means the House can order all documents it deems necessary to carry out its duties.

As I noted previously, and will again for the benefit of government members, there is not a similar privilege afforded to the government to refuse an order for the production of documents. We are here debating this motion because the government seems to believe that it has such a privilege.

I will re-emphasize to the government that in the Speaker's ruling, he noted:

The procedural precedents and authorities are abundantly clear. The House has the undoubted right to order the production of any and all documents from any entity or individual it deems necessary to carry out its duties. Moreover, these powers are a settled matter, at least as far as the House is concerned. They have been confirmed and reconfirmed by my immediate predecessors, as well as those more distantly removed.

That was from the Speaker's ruling directly, just for clarity.

The Speaker also went on to quote page 985 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, which I will quote for the benefit of Liberal members of the House: “No statute or practice diminishes the fullness of that power rooted in House privileges unless there is an explicit legal provision to that effect, or unless the House adopts a specific resolution limiting the power.”

The House has never set a limit on its power to order the production of papers. I believe that is an important aspect. It is clear that the government is violating one of the collective privileges we have as members of the chamber. We are all sent here by residents in our own ridings from all corners of the country to make sure their voices are heard. The government is continuing to completely disregard that authority we have as members of the House.

We are also here because the government failed to protect the Canadian taxpayer. According to the Auditor General's report released on June 4, the government turned SDTC, Sustainable Development Technology Canada, into a slush fund for Liberal insiders. She found that SDTC had awarded funding to projects that were ineligible and where conflicts of interest existed. In total, 123 million dollars' worth of contracts were found to have been given inappropriately, with $59 million being given to projects that should never have been awarded any money at all.

I mentioned that the government seems so careless with money. Two million people in a single month are lined up at food banks. People are struggling just to afford basic necessities because of the inflationary policies caused by the government, yet $59 million has been given out to projects that should never have been awarded any money at all. I think that is staggering, and it shows that the government has no regard for the taxpayer.

I go back home to my riding and travel around northwestern Ontario, and nobody likes taxes; I think that is pretty clear. Maybe the Liberals and the NDP like taxes, but most people do not really appreciate paying taxes. When I talk to my constituents, they say that they have no problem chipping in their fair share if they know where it is going, and if it is going to go somewhere to help benefit their community and their country.

That is the big issue with the government; Liberals are raising taxes, and what are they doing with the money? They are funnelling it to Liberal insiders. They are taxing Canadians more, and Canadians are getting less as a result. It is completely unacceptable.

I want to get back to the Auditor General, because she discovered that conflicts of interest were connected to approval decisions. As a consequence, at the green slush fund, nearly $76 million of funding was awarded to projects where there was a connection to the Liberals' friends appointed to roles within Sustainable Development Technology Canada, while $12 million of funding was given to projects that were both ineligible and had conflicts of interest.

In fact the Auditor General discovered that long-established conflict of interest policies were not followed in 90 cases. In one instance, the Prime Minister's hand-picked chair siphoned off $217,000 to her own company.

I believe that the Auditor General has made it very clear that the blame for the scandal lies directly at the feet of the Prime Minister's industry minister, who “did not sufficiently monitor” the contracts that were being awarded to Liberal insiders. The industry minister utterly failed in his duty to protect the Canadian taxpayer, but what else is new with the Liberal government?

There is much more, and I do not want to repeat too much of what members have already covered, but I do want to note for the record that if the government had managed taxpayer dollars responsibly, we would not be discussing a privilege motion here today. Of course if the government had handed over the documents, we would not be here debating the privilege motion. We could be discussing one of the many other issues that are impacting Canadians in their everyday lives.

It is very important to note that only the government has the power to end the gridlock. If it complies with the House order to hand over all the documents related to the green slush fund, we can then get back to normal programming. Instead, the government is trying to protect itself and withhold what I would imagine is very damaging information. It must be very damaging information if the Liberals are willing to put their entire legislative agenda on hold.

As I mentioned, we could be talking about everyday Canadians and the fact that we have a plan to axe the carbon tax to bring down the cost of living and make life more affordable for people who are struggling. We could be talking about our plan to remove the GST on new home builds or our plan to make housing more affordable and get young Canadians out of their parents' basements and realize the dream of home ownership.

We could be talking about our plan to stop the crime by bringing in jail, not bail for repeat violent offenders, fixing the broken bail system the government has created and ensuring that we can restore safe streets across the country. We could be talking about many issues impacting first nation communities and about reconciliation across the country.

All of these issues are tremendously important and require our attention, but the government would rather drag out the debate to prevent the documents from being released. I think that speaks for itself. It speaks to the fact that the government clearly has something to hide.

It is also unfortunate that the incident is not an isolated one. Many members have mentioned this. It is a culture, a pattern, with the government. There has been scandal after scandal. Whenever one scandal is in the rear-view mirror, another one comes to light. We have talked about SNC-Lavalin of course, the WE Charity and the Bahamas vacation the Prime Minister took. The list goes on.

One scandal in particular that has come to light recently is the one involving the former minister of employment, workforce development and official languages, who is still sitting as the member for Edmonton Centre but is no longer in cabinet. This is a very interesting one.

It has been reported that the member is tied to a lobbyist who received a staggering $110 million in federal contracts. He was the director of the company that received a further $8 million of government contracts. He is engulfed in allegations of fraud and wire fraud. He also tried to hide that he was getting payments from the lobbying firm while he was lobbying his own government and even sometimes his own ministry. However, he was caught by Global News, which reported this, thankfully, to highlight the issue for Canadians.

It does not stop there. As if that were not bad enough, earlier this month we found out that there were more text messages in addition to the ones obtained earlier, that showed a Randy, perhaps another Randy as the member for Edmonton Centre maintained. This Randy was in regular contact with his co-owner while he was the minister. It turns out that there is only one Randy, and we all know who it is.

On top of all this, because again it does not stop there, the member made false claims about his own ancestry, pretending to be indigenous in order to advance his own business interests, hoping to use that as an opportunity to access government funding for his business. It is absolutely despicable for anyone, let alone a member of the government and a minister of the Crown, to do such a thing.

Any one of those issues would have been serious enough for the member for Edmonton Centre to be fired from cabinet, but for some reason the Prime Minister continued to show support right up until the point the former minister resigned in disgrace. It really makes one wonder what it takes for an unethical Liberal minister to be removed from cabinet.

I guess the problem is there are too many ethical scandals on the other side. The Liberals would have to get rid of almost the entire cabinet at this rate, including the Prime Minister. Again, I highlight the issue because although it is not directly related to the SDTC green slush fund scandal, it is important to note that there is a repeated pattern with the government.

Coming back to the last issue, as the member for Kenora, I represent 42 first nations. I also represent part of the Métis homeland in northwestern Ontario. The scandal that I just highlighted with the member for Edmonton Centre particularly hits home for residents in my riding. Roughly half of my riding is indigenous. We know that first nations and indigenous people across the country experience a number of challenges and that a number of well-intentioned programs have been created to help rectify some of the past wrongs. To have a minister of the Crown use that to his advantage, to fake indigenous ancestry, is something that is especially concerning and disgraceful. That is what I have heard in my riding from residents, both indigenous and non-indigenous.

I have lots of questions about the priorities of the government. We have seen in the case of the member for Edmonton Centre that the Prime Minister has continued to stand up for him, to have his back. However, if we look at past Liberal ministers, taking Jody Wilson-Raybould as an example, she is an indigenous woman who spoke the truth and was punished. She was removed from cabinet and kicked right out of caucus. The question I know a lot of people have is why the government is so quick to remove an indigenous woman from its benches when she speaks the truth and also so quick to support a non-indigenous man pretending to be indigenous and trying to advance his own interests.

It is perplexing to me that no members on that side seem to be asking that question. I would think they would also want to know. Maybe they do not care. I would like to think that they do, that they would take issue with this, but it does not seem that they do. These are very serious allegations. It is incredible to me that it has become normalized on that side of the House that one would use a ministerial position to advance one's own interests and even go as far as doing what Jody Wilson-Raybould described as “play[ing] ancestry wheel of fortune.”

There is much more I could go on about, but it is very important to note that this green slush fund scandal really is just one domino in a series of events of ethically challenged Liberal governance. It is very important to know that we could get back to debating the issues everyday Canadians are facing if the government were to comply with the House order, if it was able to show some transparency. It is supposed to be transparent by default, but that really has not worked out. The government must hand over the documents instead of trying to cover this up. It is unacceptable that it has paralyzed the House for two months instead of doing what was ordered and that it is preventing us from addressing the many issues this country is facing.

I want Canadians across the country who may be watching at home to know that this really is not how a government should be run. A government should not be caught up in scandal after scandal, improperly spending taxpayer dollars, trying to cover it up or rewarding insiders. That is why Conservatives will keep fighting to get to the bottom of this scandal. Canadians deserve to know what is in those documents, and those who broke the law should be prosecuted.

Above all, it is clear that the government is not worth the cost or the corruption, and only Conservatives will take action to clean up this mess. It is time for a carbon tax election so that Canadians can elect a common-sense Conservative government that will end the corruption, axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, stop the crime and get things back on track for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

1:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, we know how Conservatives are actually treated in the back room. They are all watched very closely by the Conservative leader and report directly.

It is interesting that the member ended his speech with slogans. There is a CBC report that should be mandatory reading, quite frankly, for every member of the House: “If the leader invents a new slogan,” Conservative sources say that “we know we'll have to use it”.

It goes on to say this:

“If you repeat the slogans, you get rewarded,” said a Conservative source. “You are celebrated in front of the entire caucus for being a good cheerleader....”

These things are what Conservative MPs and Conservatives are actually saying, and we just witnessed yet another; we witness it with virtually every one of them who stands up. The reality is that this is nothing more than a multi-million dollar game that the Conservative Party is playing, which is in the self-interest of the leader of the Conservative Party and not in the interest of Canadians.

If the Conservatives want to talk about corruption, I have a much longer list of examples of Conservative corruption, and even corruption in which the member's own leader was involved.

The Conservatives' actual motion says that we should take the issue and hand it over to the procedure and House affairs committee. When will the Conservatives stop playing this game at the expense of Canadians and allow us to vote on their motion?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is always amusing to be able to respond to a question from the member for Winnipeg North.

The crux of the question was this: When can we get back to work? I would reiterate that we can get back to work when the government hands over the documents and finally shows some transparency.

Once again, I will use the word “amusing”. It is incredibly amusing that the member spoke to that CBC article, which was absolute garbage. The fact of the matter is that we have a Liberal Party that is actively trying to remove their leader. There is a list circulating among their caucus. I would be very curious to know if the member for Winnipeg North has seen the letter. Maybe he has signed that letter, but I doubt we will ever know, because we know that Liberal members have to get permission to actually speak their mind in their own caucus.

The member likes to pretend to be all high and mighty, but Canadians know that Conservatives—

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

1:20 p.m.

Bloc

The Acting Speaker Bloc Gabriel Ste-Marie

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, at least within the Liberal caucus, each individual has a mind. We do not have to follow the lead of the leaders.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

1:20 p.m.

Bloc

The Acting Speaker Bloc Gabriel Ste-Marie

That is clearly a point of debate.

We will move on to questions and comments. The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

1:20 p.m.

Bloc

Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, since the Conservatives have not been shy about preventing us from doing our job of asking serious questions for the past month, I will take the liberty of asking a question that has nothing to do with the current debate, but is important nonetheless.

If current trends hold, we know that, in the coming years, we could see a separatist government elected in Quebec. The party that would form that government has promised to hold a referendum during its term. There is also a possibility that a Conservative government will be elected during the next federal election. We know that an act on referendum clarity was passed here. Under that act, the government gave itself the right not to respect democracy in the event of a “yes” victory.

I want to know whether my colleague believes, deep down, that a “yes” victory in Quebec would be recognized by a potential Conservative government.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I would reiterate that the topic at hand today is the SDTC green slush fund scandal. Although the question is well intentioned and well placed, we have to stay focused on the fact that the Liberal government is continuing to paralyze Parliament by refusing to comply with an order of the House. This is all to cover up a scandal that must be very damaging to the Liberals if they are willing to go to such great lengths. I hope that the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the other parties will join us in fighting for the answers, fighting for the truth, to ensure that Canadians can see what happened. That way, they can have transparency, and those bad actors who are involved will get what is coming to them.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

1:20 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am just disgusted with the Liberals' barrel of scandals that followed a Conservative government under Harper, who also had a barrel of scandals. However, I have to say, I have been pretty nauseated having to listen to particularly the Conservative leader, the member for Carleton, pretending to be on the side of indigenous peoples when he is on the record being a residential school denialist. In fact, he has fundraised with residential school denialists, the Frontier Centre, that ran campaigns in Saskatchewan denying residential schools. I have also had to call points of order on other Conservative members who likened indigenous backgrounds to criminality, something they changed in the Hansard over. I found myself grunting out loud in the House in excruciating disgust at tokenizing the racism and the stripping and stealing of indigenous identity by a party that supports residential school denialists.

I want to ask my colleague here, does he stand alongside me to condemn the Conservative leader's fundraising any further with residential school-denying think tanks?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member speaks to an accusation that I am unaware of. I am not going to make any direct comments about that. I can say this: I have enjoyed working with the member in the past at committee and with members of the House to advance reconciliation, whether it be at indigenous affairs or anywhere else. I know the Conservatives have a very bold plan for reconciliation. We have a plan to ensure we are meeting the needs of first nations, Inuit, Métis across the country. I look forward to continuing that work, hopefully with all members of the House, in good faith and not playing political games.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about this SDTC scandal and nearly $400 million of taxpayer funds corruptly directed to companies and the board members, all appointed by the Liberal minister at the time, profited directly. These were companies they controlled or were actively participating in. We are talking about $290 million. It is an incredible amount of money. We could have axed the carbon tax for a lot of residents in Alberta for that price, or in Ontario, in his riding of Kenora, for years. They would have netted out more money. We could have built some homes by reducing the GST on new builds under a million bucks. We could have fixed more of the budget by reducing the deficit. We could have stopped some crime, including the crime of obtaining a brand-new passport after being ordered by a court not to have one. These Liberals allowed a known convicted human trafficker to get a brand-new passport from passport Canada despite the fact that a court had ordered he not have one.

Which one of those four options does the member think his constituents would have preferred instead of giving it to Liberal crooks?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON

Mr. Speaker, we can take our pick. Of course, as I mentioned in my remarks, the debate itself is about the government handing over the documents, but it could have prevented all of that in the first place by just managing taxpayer funds effectively. When I go door to door, when I speak to residents across northwestern Ontario and beyond, we hear time and time again that people are looking for change. They are looking for a plan to bring down the cost of living by axing the tax, a plan to build more homes, as the member for Calgary Shepard mentioned, by reducing the GST on new home builds and helping speed up building permits. We have a number of common-sense proposals Canadians are excited about, and they want us to be here debating those issues. Unfortunately, the Liberals will not let us, because they are too busy trying to cover up their own corruption.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I do not want this to be a trick question, so I will remind the member to be careful in the way he answers it, because the Conservative spies are listening to him. The issue is we have very important votes coming up. One in regard to providing workers in Canada, 18 million plus, $250 come springtime, and we have a tax holiday for the GST on a number of products and services starting on December 15.

Will this member be supporting those two measures?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON

Mr. Speaker, we know the Liberals are moving forward with their temporary tax trick. Conservatives also know they are going to be increasing taxes on Canadians as soon as that is over. The Liberals have a plan, along with their NDP coalition partner, to continue raising the costs of living for Canadians, and Conservatives do not support that plan.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a pleasure to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber.

My colleague before me lamented the fact that he had to speak twice on this. I will add to the lament, as this is my third time rising, because the government is not listening to ordinary Canadians as they are represented in this chamber.

Before I get into the substance of my speech, I want to take a moment to recognize the efforts of 40 extraordinary Canadians, for that is truly what ordinary Canadians are, for bringing the peace train to Ottawa two nights ago. MPs from a cross-section of this chamber, representing a cross-section of philosophical paths to peace, from our military veterans and peacekeepers to our peaceniks, all agreed on the message represented by the peace train participants: that Canada should do more for peace in our world.

It has been said many times that war is a failure of statecraft. We thank these folks for reminding us to invest more, in many ways, for peace.

Speaking of state and government failures, here we are again because the current government is ruling like an autocratic regime rather than a parliamentary democracy. Of course I am referring to the green slush fund and the Liberal refusal to hand over documents as ordered. The government is not being accountable on any front.

Today we are talking about the subamendment that is to be added to the amendment, and it reads as follows:

...except that the order for the committee to report back to the House within 30 sitting days shall be discharged if the Speaker has sooner laid upon the table a notice from the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel confirming that all government institutions have fully complied with the Order adopted on June 10, 2024,—

That is my birthday.

—by depositing all of their responsive records in an unredacted form.

In other words, the government does not have to report back to the House if it actually complies with the ruling of the Speaker's office. At issue, of course, is the Auditor General's finding that the Liberal appointees gave 400 million tax dollars to their own companies, involving 186 conflicts of interest. This is about 400 million wasted taxpayer dollars while Canadians cannot afford to eat, heat or house themselves.

The NDP-Liberals must end the cover-up and make the unredacted documents available, as ordered by the Speaker, so Parliament can get back to working for Canadians.

Let us review a few of the facts. The Speaker ruled that the NDP-Liberals violated a House order to turn over evidence to the police for a criminal investigation of the latest Liberal $400-million scandal, but why the cover-up? Why would they allow Parliament to be incapacitated rather than address the issues that Canadians really and truly care about, like the doubling of housing costs, food inflation, crime and chaos?

On the crime front, the government has made a mockery of our justice system. Terri-Lynne McClintic, who abducted, and then assisted her boyfriend in the sexually motivated killing of, eight-year-old Tori Stafford in 2009 was allowed to be in the presence of children through a mother-child program at a women's federal penitentiary. It is hard to even fathom. Where is the accountability? I spoke so much about accountability in my previous two interventions.

Time after time, the government has revictimized victims, just as it did when it allowed Paul Bernardo to be moved out of a maximum-security facility. The government created the problem by passing Bill C-83, which ensures that even the worst of the worst, like Paul Bernardo, Luka Magnotta and Terri-Lynne McClintic, must be incarcerated in the least restrictive environment.

The Prime Minister has unleashed a wave of crime across the country with disastrous policies like Bill C-5, which took away mandatory jail for violent crime and allowed sex offenders to serve their sentences in the same home as their victims, under house arrest. Bill C-75 also made it easier for repeat violent offenders to be given bail. While the Liberals are concerned about heinous criminals being given a less restrictive environment, Canadians suffer the consequences of unrestricted crime and chaos. Again, the victims of crime are revictimized.

The government must be held to account for its failures. It has allowed Parliament to be paralyzed by its refusal to be transparent about the SDTC documents. Its own self-interest supersedes all other issues in their minds. Refusing to hand over the documents is an affront to Parliament. What is so bad that the government would go to such lengths to hide it?

Why would the government not instead focus on the food inflation it has caused? Food bank use has doubled. Wholesale food prices in Canada have risen 36% faster than wholesale food prices in the U.S., a gap that has opened up since the introduction of the carbon tax. Sadly, now there are two million people lined up to feed themselves and their families at food banks. Our economy is teetering on the brink, but the worst is yet to come.

The coalition government voted for and legislated the quadrupling of the carbon tax to 61¢ a litre. In Ontario alone, Feed Ontario revealed last September, a record one million people visited a food bank in 2024. This is a dramatic increase of the 25% from the previous year, with Feed Ontario's CEO telling the media, “I never thought I would see this day”. She went on to say that she had been with the organization for almost 15 years and never thought it would see this level of demand. She cannot believe it has reached a point where the numbers are so dramatically high. However, the Liberals seem oblivious to the suffering.

In a parliamentary democracy, Parliament is supreme. If a citizen finds a certain law repugnant, their only option is to mobilize a change in Parliament, for example by campaigning in favour of a certain issue, by joining a political party or by standing for office, such that Parliament changes that law. Citizens who disagree with the law of this land and believe that their rights have been violated can push for political change.

The rule of law is crucial in a democracy because it ensures that everyone, including government officials, is subject to the law. Key points about the rule of law in a democracy include equality before the law regardless of social status, checks on power, and holding the government accountable, which is a fundamental point in the rule of law. Other key points are the protection of rights; social sustainability, where citizens trust the law will be applied fairly; and economic development. A strong rule of law fosters a predictable business environment, encouraging investment and economic growth.

It is evident that the government believes that it is above the law and above the sovereignty of the chamber. Holding leaders accountable for serious wrongdoings is a hallmark of democracy. That is why we are here today. Again I ask, where are the documents? What is in them that is making the Liberals so afraid of the Canadian public's finding out?

To the matter at hand, let us talk for a moment about what the Sustainable Development Technology Canada fund could have done with respect to research and innovation, and in particular, for a moment, with the energy sector. If colleagues would please indulge me, I will come back to the direct issue of the corruption at hand in a moment. I have often talked about this next sequence in round tables at town halls that I host.

If we think back to the creation, development and increase of wealth in our western world, it has largely mirrored the increase and the densification of our energy. When we came out of the caves, we kept ourselves warm and heated our food with wood. Over time we moved to charcoal and coal and on to fossil fuels. Today we have nuclear energy. Potentially tomorrow we will have hydrogen. Each one of these sources of energy has come with its own set of environmental consequences. As we have moved to a new path to that densification of energy, we have found ways of reducing and eventually removing, hopefully, environmental consequences.

There is a question I often ask when I am hosting round tables. We often hear the opposition speak of fossil fuels, their use and a hope for the day of peak oil. Here is my question: When did the world achieve peak coal? I do not mean the metallurgical coal we need for steelmaking. When did the world hit peak use of thermal coal?

I often ask this question at home, and I get responses from my constituents. Some say it was probably during the 1870s, during the Industrial Revolution. Maybe it was in the roaring twenties in the lead-up to the great crash, or more recently, after the green revolution of the 1970s. However, our world hit peak coal, the record use of fossil fuels in the form of coal, in 2023, and we are going to break that record this year.

Why is that important? Coal has twice the greenhouse gas emissions of liquefied natural gas. If Canada truly wanted to address greenhouse gas emissions that had a material effect on the world, we would be championing the sale and use of our clean and ethically produced liquid natural gas. We had 15 projects on the books 10 years ago. That is not what the government has done.

We have had the world come asking for that energy. Instead, the government has introduced a carbon tax, and while it might make someone feel good by patting themselves on the back that they are doing something, Canada produces 1.5% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

Weather and climate are a worldwide phenomenon. If we wanted to impact greenhouse gas emissions on a worldwide scale, we could. A carbon tax is not going to do it. We could, not as an end goal a century out but as an interim step, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from a material perspective and fund our own wealth as we transition our economy over to even more environmentally benign technologies. That is what we could be doing.

There was a fund set up to direct energy, investment and innovation in that direction. The Auditor General took a look at it back in 2017 and that fund was working well then. However, here we are today. I will end in a few minutes after already speaking for an hour to the corruption that has come from the government, but I will note that if we wanted to do something, that is where the fund could truly be making a difference. Instead, we are here talking about corruption.

I have spoken at great length in the House about the lack of accountability and about the endemic corruption of the government. There was a lack of accountability by the former employment minister. After months of Conservative prosecution, he finally resigned. There have been allegations of fraud, of being involved in a private business while sitting at the cabinet table and of fake indigenous claims, and they were not enough to remove him from cabinet for months. Why is this behaviour seemingly endemic in the government?

Earlier this week, the Prime Minister defended the former minister and claimed, “I'm happy that he is continuing to lead on issues around jobs and employment and represent Alberta in our government.” It is now clear that the Prime Minister knew about the crime and corruption the other Randy was engaged in the entire time. That was not enough to remove him. He knew about the double identity but chose to look the other way. The Prime Minister knew that the member for Edmonton Centre was operating his own business while sitting at the cabinet table.

Members may remember that the former minister had the nerve to testify that the Randy referenced in texts was not him but another Randy who just happened to work at the company he has a 50% ownership stake in. His business partner has refuted these claims, stating now that he was the only Randy who worked at that company. I guess he thought if the Prime Minister was backing him, he could get away with it. After all, the Liberals have gotten away with a litany of scandals over their rocky nine-year tenure in government.

The Prime Minister knew he was falsely claiming to be indigenous to steal money from indigenous people. After firing a legitimate indigenous justice minister for upholding the rule of law in Canada against his wishes, the Prime Minister decided to protect a corrupt, fake indigenous minister. There is a double standard when it comes to the Liberals: They expect the rest of us to be responsible for our actions, but they are not accountable for theirs. Everything from Frank Baylis and the $273-million scandal to the former minister Navdeep Bains getting an executive position at Rogers after the government green-lit the Rogers-Shaw merger.

It is unconscionable. Every member of the House of Commons swears an oath to uphold the democratic institution of Parliament. Parliament is the foundation our nation was founded upon; it is a firm and solid base. As we come here to work every day, we are witnessing the rebuilding of Centre Block. The government is spending between $4.5 billion and $5 billion in part to provide a firm and solid foundation under that national treasure.

There is an old hymn whose refrain goes like this:

On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand;
All other ground is sinking sand,

When we build a home, the foundation is arguably the most important part. Without a firm foundation, Centre Block would not be secure. Our security in a democracy is the firm foundation that our country was built upon. It provides the stability upon which we stand. When a democratic government rules as if it were a dictatorship, the supremacy and the stability of Parliament is lost. Freedom is not free.

Over 118,000 Canadians have died in military service for our country to keep this “land glorious and free”, a predominant line in our national anthem. It is time the government adhere to the principle of the rule of law in Canada. The fundamental principle of the rule of law means that everyone is subject to the same laws and no one is above the law. The rule of law is based on the idea that laws should be applied fairly and equally to all people, regardless of their power, wealth or societal position. It is time to restore accountability and democratic freedom in Canada.

Conservatives will continue to hold this government accountable and demand that the documents be released in an unredacted form. When will the government call a carbon tax election so that Canadians can vote out this out-of-control, corrupt government and vote in a common-sense Conservative government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, stop the crime and bring home lower prices for all Canadians? For our home; for your home, Mr. Speaker; and for my home, let us bring it home.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I really enjoyed listening to the member's speech. I thought parts of it were extremely thoughtful, when he spoke more extemporaneously about the history of fuels and so on. Then, of course he went into what I call the ChatGPT Conservative tropes we have been hearing for four weeks.

When it comes to the Conservative Party, there is no such thing as an environmental policy mix. It is all based on one thing. They do not like the price on carbon, ZEV mandate, an emissions cap, a clean-fuel standard, a clean electricity standard or even planting trees. It all comes down to giving money for green technology. The member seemed to say that they want to give a lot of money to the oil and gas industry, and we know they are allied with the oil and gas industry. I am wondering if the member finds that a bit ironic.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

1:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Mr. Speaker, there are so many ways I could go in response. Let us start with trees. The government has addressed climate change by planting two billion trees. I would ask every member with a phone here to go to Google and ask, “How many trees does Canada have?” The government's plan to address climate change was to plant two billion trees. It is nowhere close to that, but it wants to add two billion to Canada's present 318 billion trees. It is not there yet.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

1:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was the one who heckled the number of trees, but they do start as seeds, just to make the member aware.