Debates of Nov. 25th, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, first, the compromise, as he promotes it to be a compromise, is not much of one. It is not even coming from the government. Why does it not give all the documents to PROC? That might be a compromise, but it is not even offering that. The way we got through this type of impasse in a previous parliament, under a previous administration, was the development of a special committee. There was a desire by the government of the day to avoid an election and a complete shutdown of Parliament.

The Liberals have not shown themselves to provide any amount of compromise on this issue. We should be getting the documents unredacted. The fact that the Chair is trying to broker a deal is okay, but that is not a compromise in my books.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I recall watching The Muppet Show and there were these two characters called Waldorf and Statler, who used to sit there and just launch insults at people. It is funny how it seemingly plays itself out here, too.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

What are you trying to imply?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I meant nothing. I am not looking at that member or the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

We have $400 million that, in 183 circumstances, have been funnelled to board members of SDTC without seemingly following the Conflict of Interest Act. We know the Auditor General ruled on this.

Should this not go to the police rather than a committee, if criminal wrongdoing is at play here?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have to remind my colleague that I am not the same vintage as him, but his reference to The Muppet Show I do get and I thought it was right on point. The fact that we have $400 million missing means the RCMP should be investigating. It has confirmed it is looking at documents. If we have an ability to ensure it has all the information it needs to do its job properly, we should allow it to do so.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on someone who is an expert in dealing with the issue at hand, and that is Steven Chaplin, who is a former senior legal counsel in the office of the Law Clerk and the parliamentary counsel.

In a Hill Times article, he says, “It is time for the House of Commons to admit it was wrong, and to move on. There has now been three weeks”, and now it would be much more than that, “of debate on a questionable matter of privilege based on”, and I really want the member to listen to this part, “the misuse of the House’ power to order producing documents.”

There is no doubt we have unfettered power. It does not mean we should be using it in all situations. We should be listening to what the Auditor General of Canada is saying. We should be listening to what the RCMP is saying to parliamentarians. We should not be listening to the self-serving leader of the Conservative Party who is dictating to Conservative members as to what they have to say inside the House in order to be in the good books and get the gold star from the Conservative caucus.

When will members recognize that what they are actually doing is in borderline contempt of Parliament?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, we cannot be in contempt of Parliament when the majority of the Parliament wants access to these documents. It is really nice that the member quotes The Hill Times, but how about thinking about the largest circulated publication, The Globe and Mail, that says that Parliament has an ability to get these documents, that it has a right to get these documents and that it should not stop until we get those documents? It is the business of the House to find out where $400 million have gone. The parliamentary secretary says that we should not be using this power. For what purpose then would he want to use this power if not to find out what happened to $400 million?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would once again remind our esteemed Conservative colleague that the police do not want those documents. They do not need them. However, the House has been paralyzed for over a month because the Conservatives want those documents to be released.

On another note, the NDP has indicated that it is prepared to support a 24-hour gag order to ensure that the government can pass the measures that it announced last Thursday. What does my colleague think about that?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am unaware of a 24-hour gag order; I apologize.

However, what I would say to my hon. colleague with respect to the RCMP not wanting the documents is that it is up to the RCMP to not receive the documents. The government could provide the unredacted documents to members of Parliament first; we could then decide what to do with those documents. That would be a compromise, but that has not come out from this side of the House either.

If the RCMP does not want to look at the documents or thinks they could be a violation of privacy, that is for the RCMP to decide. It does not have to look at the documents if it does not want to.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my good colleague and bordering neighbour to the north from Simcoe North.

I would like to quote something very interesting that came from a whistle-blower in the testimony on SDTC. They said, “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 quite a resounding quote.

What are the member's comments on this quote from the whistle-blower?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, that was a great question and a pointed quote from my great colleague, friend and neighbour.

Yes, the Liberals seem more interested in protecting themselves or their friends who might have been part of some criminal wrongdoing. Let us remind ourselves that they went out of their way to freeze the bank accounts of people they did not agree with. Why do we not freeze the bank accounts of the people who are on the board of SDTC until we get the $400 million back?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the debate intently today, and it has been quite interesting to finally see Conservatives taking some responsibility. Today, the member for Barrie—Innisfil referred to what is happening in the House as a standoff. Per the definition, a “standoff” is a “stalemate or deadlock between two equally matched opponents in a dispute or a conflict.”

There is something really interesting about this place. I find the member to be honourable. I was a little disappointed that he would take cheap shots at the member for Winnipeg North in regard to a cabinet position. I think he is above that, but the Conservative contamination is clearly taking place. Even the good ones are having to fight for that gold star.

Does the member feel that the member for Barrie—Innisfil's comments are accurate and that the two are equally matched in their responsibility for the lack of progress taking place in this chamber in terms of fighting for the very good people we fight for?

I will just say something one more time because it is important: I fight for the good people of the riding of Waterloo. They are the reason I am here. They would like us to get to work, just as they are going to work. They know the Speaker's ruling. They are saying to call the question. Liberals agree we should get to the bottom of this. I think every party agrees with that. Right before the House went for—

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

I have to give the hon. member time for a very short answer.

The hon. member for Simcoe North.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think everyone in this place can handle a good-natured ribbing, and I think my friend on the parliamentary secretary's side is a great person.

I would just say that we are at a stalemate. We should find a compromise and move on. However, it starts with getting the documents, first and foremost.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is really interesting to be here debating this privilege motion, which first came to the House on September 26. Nearly two months ago, we first started having this conversation when the Speaker ruled on a matter of privilege and found that the privileges of the House had, in fact, been breached.

There was a point in time, many years ago, when I was studying political science as a very keen young student, that breaches of privilege were exceptionally rare. I remember going through the books and studying this when I was a brand new member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta. I read through the various rulings of different Speakers over the years, and it was something that was very uncommon. However, it seems that, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, there is a new privilege being breached just about every week. It seems that there is a new scandal every day. We are not talking about small scandals.

One challenge Conservatives have is that we are not talking about a small amount of money; we are talking about nearly $400 million that the Auditor General found was misspent by the NDP-Liberal government and that went to Liberal insiders. In fact, based on what the Auditor General was able to find, the green slush fund gave $58 million to 10 projects that were ineligible and could not demonstrate an environmental benefit or the development of green technology. This is not a one-off. It is a pretty large amount, but according to the Liberals, there was nothing to see here. Then there was $334 million and 186 cases of projects for which the board members themselves held conflicts of interest. Therefore, the people who were deciding where the money got spent decided to give $334 million to themselves and their friends. Worse than that, there were some projects that were both ineligible and in conflict. That is a special kind of failure, to be able to do both at once. However, after nine years under the NDP-Liberals, it seems as though that is business as usual.

Canadians are struggling. One in four parents is skipping meals and going without food to make sure that their children have food. One in five children in this country is now living in poverty. We have the highest increase in child poverty that we have seen, with year over year increases, after nine years of these guys being in charge. Canadians are sitting there wondering when the end will be in sight.

The interesting piece is this: We have been sitting here for nearly two months debating why the government is so afraid of what will be found that it refuses to give the documents to the RCMP. We are not saying we need to tell the RCMP what to do with the documents; all that was decided was that government documents need to go to the RCMP. If it finds something wrong, it can then do something. The government is so afraid of the RCMP seeing these documents that it has stonewalled Parliament, ground this place to a virtual halt and prevented important pieces of legislation from going forward. This is all for the sake of protecting Liberal insiders. Members should let that sink in. Instead of giving over the documents, the government would rather that we have conversations and debates, day in and day out, for almost two months, on whether a privilege has been breached; we know it has because the Speaker, in fact, ruled that a breach took place.

The government is so afraid of the RCMP seeing these documents that it continues to filibuster this motion. In fact, the last time I got up to speak to this, I had the statistics for the number of words that had been spoken by the parliamentary secretary from Winnipeg, who cannot help himself. It seems that, at every opportunity, he gives another 20-minute speech and gets another 10 minutes of Qs and As. On top of that, at every opportunity, when there is a speaker, he makes sure that he is the very first person to ask questions. In fact, I would be surprised if he had not asked questions on every single speech that was given. There might be a few where he has not.

This just goes to show the lengths the government is willing to go to in order to protect Liberal insiders. Canadians deserve to have this information. The challenge with the green slush fund is that it seems as though we find a new layer to this onion of scandal every few weeks. We have found cases in which companies such as Cycle Capital, which just happened to have the Minister of Environment work for it before, got money. I am sure that is a total coincidence and that is totally A-okay, even though the Minister of Environment still has shares in that very company. That should probably be a bit of a red flag.

We have also spent the last month learning about a variety of different scandals of the Parliament. In fact, should the government finally decide that enough is enough, that it will release the documents so that we can move on to the important business of Parliament, we will then have the next privilege debate on the business partner of the member for Edmonton Centre, Stephen Anderson. We will then have a conversation about that privilege and the lack of answers that he provided when he came to committee.

This is part of a troubling pattern here. The fact that we had someone come to the bar of the House of Commons in this session should be a pretty alarming space. At this point, under the NDP-Liberals over the last nine years, this is what we see.

They keep making these arguments that we cannot direct the RCMP. No one is directing the RCMP. In fact, it is really interesting. There was a company in my riding, a corporation, and they found that there was suspected fraud at their place of business. They assembled all the documents that would help the RCMP in conducting the investigation and provided them to the RCMP; that way, the RCMP could do its job and determine whether there was fraud.

That is precisely what Conservatives are asking to have happen. We are simply asking for the government to not redact information. Frankly, if we cannot trust the RCMP, who can we trust? If Liberals are so concerned about privacy and the RCMP having this information, a whole other series of questions should be asked. The reality of this is that we are asking the government to do its job. We have been able to identify, through a variety of different pieces, that over $400 million was found to be ineligible or that was in conflict. These pieces include the Auditor General, who is a trustworthy source, not some random, anonymous person. That is a large amount of money. That is more money than most Canadians could imagine.

This is part of the issue: The Liberals continue to sit here and say that they do not believe this should happen. They will cite the same person over and over again, giving all these reasons that they do not think we should release this documentation to the RCMP. Here is the difference between what they are trying to say and what the reality is: The Government of Canada is effectively the employer here. It is government money; it is taxpayer money. We owe it to taxpayers to make sure we are getting to the bottom of this.

If things are not right, we need to investigate this. We need to have the RCMP investigate; it is the organization that has been tasked with getting to the bottom of fraud and a variety of other crimes. We trust the RCMP to deal with a variety of things and keep law and order in our country.

After nine years under the NDP-Liberals, we see rampant crime. We see rampant chaos on our streets. We saw Montreal devolve into a space that was hard to even understand this weekend. There were literally people protesting on the streets of Montreal in anti-Semitic ways, and it took until the next afternoon for the Prime Minister to even condemn those actions. In my opinion, that is very reprehensible. He was busy. He had pre-existing commitments. However, most people can do two things at once. I can chew gum and walk at the same time, and when I have family commitments or different kinds of commitments and something pressing comes up, my phone is never very far away.

I am capable of approving or putting out a statement in real time, effectively, or as close to it as possible, with the exception being if I am on an airplane. However, we know the Prime Minister was not on an airplane and had access to the Internet, so the delay is questionable at best. This is part of the Liberals' track record. They have become so accustomed to scandals that it does not even seem they are concerned about this. I am sure the Liberal members will give answers saying they are concerned about these scandals.

I am going to give a bit of a reminder of the scandals. There was the Prime Minister's cash-for-access scandal, when he invited wealthy people to come and he broke multiple ethics rules. Then the Prime Minister went to the Aga Khan's island, taking a gift of a charter flight, which is against the rules. He is the very first prime minister in Canadian history to actually break the ethics rules. The Liberals are kind of okay with breaking the rules and skirting around things.

Then there were all of the challenges surrounding the Prime Minister's trip to India in 2018 and some of the cultural appropriation, to be fairly vague. I think many Canadians saw the pictures and had some serious concerns as to whether he was a serious prime minister or not. I was an MLA at the time, and I know a lot of my constituents were starting to question and have very serious concerns: “Is this guy serious?” Very quickly, as things have gone through, they have realized that if he is serious, that is even scarier.

Next there was the SNC-Lavalin scandal, which was the second ethics violation. The Prime Minister politically interfered with the Attorney General, a strong indigenous woman, Jody Wilson-Raybould, and effectively fired her, trying to protect SNC-Lavalin and save jobs in Quebec. The company was charged with fraud and corruption and sent $48 million to the Libyan government between 2001 and 2011. Eventually, the end of that was that Wilson-Raybould, a strong indigenous woman, was thrown out of caucus and is no longer a member of Parliament, but the Liberals are okay with that because they had to protect the Prime Minister.

Then there was a series of different illegal election donations to the Liberals over many years followed by the WE Charity scandal. I think this is when a lot of Canadians really started to say, “Okay, enough is enough. You have got to be joking.” The Prime Minister chose WE Charity for a $912-million contract. He had family ties to the charity through his mother, brother and now ex-wife, who did a variety of paid speaking roles for it. The Prime Minister's mom earned a total of $250,000 for 28 speaking events, his brother was paid $32,000 for eight events and his ex-wife also made a variety of appearances. The Prime Minister did not step aside from the cabinet table for discussions on granting the contract to the charity. The crazy part is that after all the scrutiny, the government changed directions and WE Charity was no longer responsible for the contract, but this was after spending a large amount of Canadians' dollars on a scheme without proper oversight.

Then, because those scandals are not enough, we have the arrive scam, where the government paid GC Strategies 118 contracts, worth over $107 million, to a two-person company. We have had a variety of different organizations and people say this was an app that probably could have been designed in a weekend for about $80,000, but it was the NDP-Liberal government so why not waste money? Kristian Firth of GC Strategies was called to the bar of the House of Commons for refusing to answer questions at committee. It was the first time that had happened since 1913.

It was kind of cool to be in a historic space and see that process unfold, from a very academic space, but for the sake of transparency and access to Canadians, it is exceptionally troubling that we are in a space where these kinds of things keep happening. The Prime Minister's answer is that it is someone else's fault, that we have experienced it differently or that we have all learned a lesson. It cannot ever be his fault because he refuses to take accountability for any action.

With the member for Edmonton Centre, it took weeks of scandal after scandal being uncovered, and he was not fired. He stepped aside; there was a mutual decision between him and the Prime Minister. In fact, the day before this mutual decision was made, the Prime Minister defended him outside of this country. Part of the problem is there is no ministerial accountability anymore after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government. There is no accountability by the Prime Minister or the government after nine years of the NDP-Liberals. They act like it is their money to spend and Canadians should be grateful they are giving them small amounts of their money back.

They are bribing Canadians with a variety of different pieces, including the newest piece of sprinkling their money back to them with this weird two-month pause on GST for a small number of things, but it will not count on everything. This is part of the challenge. It applies to chocolates. If people go to a company like Loblaws and buy a chocolate basket during that two-month period of time, that will be GST exempt, but if they go to a chocolate boutique that specializes in chocolates and buy a chocolate basket, it probably will not be GST-exempt, from the information we have.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has already said this is problematic. Having grown up in a small-business family and after talking to a number of small business owners, I know their point-of-service systems do not allow for quick changes. Yes, many businesses are now digital, so this might not be a bureaucratic nightmare for all businesses, but for small businesses that do not have an electronic point-of-service system, this will be very difficult. It will put a lot of work back on them. This is what the NDP-Liberals do.

They do not want to solve the problem. The solution would be quite simply to axe the carbon tax on everything for everyone for good. That would lower the price of groceries, home heating, fuel and food. That would lower the price of just about everything, but no, they would rather their tax scheme of a carbon tax that is all economic pain and no environmental gain continue to hurt Canadians and then sprinkle little amounts of money back to them.

They are giving a GST exemption on Christmas trees, but their GST exemption is only going to start on December 14. Most people already have their Christmas trees purchased by December 14, so I am not quite sure who this is going to help. I am sure there will be a few, but I am really nervous about not knowing all the details on this. The devil is in the details. Will this end up meaning that a whole bunch of Canadians will delay all of their Christmas and holiday shopping until once this GST vacation is in place, therefore making it really difficult for businesses that are already struggling because of out-of-control spending by the government and the crippling carbon tax that makes keeping the lights on more difficult for small businesses? Will they have a harder time and end up having their sales in a shorter window, making the customer experience more difficult and their overall experience less enjoyable?

These are the realities. After nine years, the NDP-Liberals have lost the plot. They have lost the ability to realize that the decisions they make, and that continuing to block good documents from going to the RCMP unredacted, are going to hurt Canadians. Eventually, this information is going to come out. The question is whether they are going to wait until after the next election or do the right thing, get Parliament back to work and release the documents unredacted.

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

Madam Speaker, the member focused her attention on scandals. The leader of the Conservative Party, directly and indirectly, when he was part of the Stephen Harper government, was involved in scandals, and I will give a bit of a list. There were the anti-terrorism scandal of $3.1 billion; the Phoenix scandal of $2.2 billion; the G8 spending scandal; the ETS $400-million scandal; the F-35 scandal; the Senate scandal; and elections scandals, plural. He is directly involved in one of those, too, by the way. Then I have “Stephen Harper, Serial Abuser of Power”, in which there are scandals, corruption and abuse of power. It is hefty book, with 70 different scandals.

Who would the member opposite recommend that her constituents listen to, the RCMP, the Auditor General or the politically motivated, self-serving leader of the Conservative Party, on the issue of giving the documents directly to the RCMP? Do we ignore what the RCMP, the Auditor General and law experts are saying all because she wants to follow her leader?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, it was a really interesting time when I first started paying attention to politics. It was right around the time of the Liberal sponsorship scandal, when there was cash from Liberal coffers being put into envelopes. The Liberals were literally stuffing envelopes with cash. There was so much money and that actually brought down Paul Martin's government. If the parliamentary secretary is going to go into the issue of scandals, he really has to be careful, because at least Paul Martin did the right thing. Eventually the New Democrats supported the Conservatives in bringing down that government because they realized their job was to keep accountability for Canadians. The costly coalition of the NDP-Liberals has literally sprinkled a little bit of GST vacation for a couple months on a few products, just to buy back support for the failed marriage of the NDP-Liberals.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the members today who have highlighted the riots in Montreal over the weekend. I would draw attention for a moment to the different symbols we saw there. We saw the hammer and sickle, we saw Daesh flags and we saw watermelon buttons as well.

I am new in this House and I am often reminded of that by the members opposite, who must feel threatened in some way by me to try to take down the most rookie MP on this side. Because I am new, could my colleague comment on whether the deflection from the government is something that you have seen a lot over time, or is that something new?

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

I remind the hon. member that I cannot comment on anything, but the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, I am sure, will.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, there might be a difference between whether you want to share your opinion and whether you are able to share your opinion.

To my colleague from Toronto—St. Paul's, it is so spectacular to have a Conservative in that seat within the GTA, representing those views. I have been so fortunate in the couple of months we have been able to work together to learn from the member and to learn some of the unique challenges that people in Toronto are facing that we had not heard because no one on the Liberal benches brings those concerns forward as it is not politically salient to them.

The member raises some very serious concerns regarding the Jewish community and the sense of safety and the lack of safety. It is not just the sense. People do not feel safe, but they no longer are safe. I want to thank the member for his amazing advocacy for the people of Toronto—St. Paul's and I look forward to adding more members from the GTA, with his help, in the next election, whenever that happens to be.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, in listening to the member opposite, we get the sense she might be a bit nervous in regard to the tax break the government is providing Canadians through the GST. It is almost as if the Conservatives are a little scared. They do not want to vote against it and yet they are being obligated, possibly by their leader, to vote against it.

I wonder if the member could give us a clear indication of the Conservative Party with regard to this issue. Will she, as an individual member of Parliament, vote against the tax break? Does she believe the Conservatives will be voting against the tax break that the government is providing to Canadians for two months?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, this weekend, I went home as I often do. I actually go home every weekend. When I travel, on Friday mornings, I leave Ottawa at five o'clock in the morning, so it is a pretty early flight. I often am wearing a hoodie and I am rather incognito. People do not often realize I am a member of Parliament when I get on.

When I got on my final flight from Calgary to Fort McMurray, there was a group of people. They did not know I was a member of Parliament. They were talking about the so-called tax breaks, this vacation on GST on a small number of items. They were talking about how they were so frustrated that the NDP-Liberals think they can buy people's votes by giving a small amount of their money back just in time for Christmas. It was really interesting, what one particular woman said very clearly. I went over and afterwards said, “I am the member of Parliament; it is great to meet you.” The woman had said, “If they really wanted to make a difference, they would axe the carbon tax. That has a bigger impact on my life.”

This is one of the pieces. We are not going to take any lessons from that member or from them on what they think affordability is for Canadians because Canadians in my riding, and from coast to coast to coast, see the impact of the carbon tax on their heating bill. They see the impact of the carbon tax every time they fill up their vehicle with gasoline and every time they get their gas bill. I am sorry, but a small amount of money sprinkled in a very abstract, obscure way for two months is not going to provide the help Canadians who are struggling to put food on their table need. Like I said, one in five children is living in poverty in Canada and that is due to the NDP-Liberal mismanagement of the economy.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, in her last response, the member mentioned children. Like I am, the member is a mother; she has two beautiful young children. We were talking earlier this week, when the announcement was made, about the different expenses she has as a mother.

Perhaps the member could make some comments on the new announcement, relative to being a mother and as to the little impact that the announcement will have on her day-to-day necessities as a mother of two children.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is one of the interesting pieces. Maybe in some parts of the country people can wait until December 14 to buy their children winter boots or a winter jacket. That is not the case in most parts of rural Canada. In fact I just pulled up the weather app. It is -13°C in Fort McMurray. There is full snow cover.

I cannot wait in order to save 5% on a snowsuit, wait another month before my children have appropriate winter gear. Parents cannot afford to do that, because they would be putting their children in danger. This is part of the struggle.

Like I said earlier, if the government really cared about helping Canadians who are struggling with the cost of living crisis that it caused, there is a very simple answer: It could axe the carbon tax on everything for everyone for always. That would actually have an impact and allow parents to choose how they are going to support their family.

The reality is a 5% savings on diapers for a family in Alberta. I did some calculations, and I spend about $100 a month on diapers, so that means a $5 savings. If I shop for the diapers while they are on sale, which is probably not going to fall when the GST holiday actually falls, I can save $11. I am better off to just wait for a sale on diapers if I can afford to stock up. However, most families cannot afford to stock up right now because the Liberals have made it so difficult because of their ever-increasing tax burden.

There is good news and hope on the horizon. Common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax for everyone on all the items for always when it comes to the carbon tax.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, today I rise in the chamber to discuss issues that speak to the heart of Canadian democracy: the responsible use of public funds, the ethical governance of our institutions and the accountability of elected officials.

The recent scandal surrounding Sustainable Development Technology Canada, SDTC, is not just about mismanagement; it also represents a betrayal of the trust Canadians place in their government. The matter is too important to be relegated to committee rooms or buried in bureaucracy. It is the business of the House of Commons to shine a light on a troubling case and to demand answers on behalf of Canadians. The Conservative Party of Canada is unwavering in its commitment to bringing the issue to the forefront, because the problems are deeper and more systemic within the current NDP-Liberal coalition government.

The matter is not an isolated case of a single program veering off course; it represents a troubling pattern of governance marked by a blatant disregard for ethical standards. The scandal surrounding Sustainable Development Technology Canada underscores a broader failure to uphold the principles of transparency, accountability and integrity, principles that are the bedrock of public service and democracy.

The pattern is not new. Canadians have seen time and time again how the government prioritizes its political allies over the needs of the people it was elected to serve. Whether it is through mismanagement of public funds, or through conflicts of interest or lack of transparency, the actions of the government betray a troubling disregard for the trust placed in it by Canadians. Each new revelation adds to a growing sense that corruption and insider dealings have become the norm, eroding public confidence in government institutions and creating a sense of disillusionment, frustration and disappointment among the people.

“Transparency”, “accountability” and “integrity” are not mere buzzwords or lofty ideals; they are practical, essential principles, pillars that guide how a government should function.

Transparency ensures that the public has access to the information it needs in order to hold its leaders accountable. It allows for Canadians to see how their tax dollars are being spent and whether those expenditures align with the public interest. Without transparency, the government operates in the shadows, free from scrutiny and unburdened by the consequences of its actions.

Accountability goes hand in hand with transparency. It is a mechanism by which leaders are held responsible for their decisions and actions. In a democratic system, accountability ensures that no one is above the law, and it provides a safeguard against abuse of power. For the government to refuse to release unredacted documents despite a direct order from Parliament is to undermine this critical pillar of democracy. Such behaviour sets a dangerous precedent, suggesting that the government is willing to disregard its obligations to the public and to the institution of Parliament itself.

Integrity, the third pillar, is about more than following the rules; it is about doing what is right, even when no one is watching. It is about prioritizing the public good over personal gain or political expediency. The scandals that have plagued the current government reveal a profound lack of integrity. When public servants approve funding that benefits their own ventures, when conflicts of interest go unchecked and when leaders refuse to admit fault or take corrective action, they compromise the very foundation of trust upon which governance is built.

That is why the Conservative Party of Canada is determined to bring the issue to the attention of every Canadian. It is not just about recovering the misused $400 million or addressing the 186 documented conflicts of interest. It is also about sending a clear message that the days of unaccountable governance must come to an end. It is about restoring faith in our democratic institutions and proving that elected officials can and will be held to the highest standards of conduct.

This moment is an opportunity to reaffirm what good governance looks like. It is a chance to remind Canadians that they deserve better than corruption, secrecy and mismanagement. They deserve a government that respects their hard-earned tax dollars, governs with honesty and fairness and holds itself accountable to the people who elected it.

The Conservative Party is ready to lead by example, offering Canadians a government that places transparency, accountability and integrity at the heart of its agenda. This is a commitment. It is a core value that will guide every decision, every policy and every action. Canadians deserve nothing less than a government they can trust, a government that serves them, not itself.

Let us revisit the purpose for which SDTC was established. Launched in 2001, the initiative was intended to position Canada as a leader in clean technology. Its mandate was ambitious but clear: to fund projects that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality and water quality and promote sustainable resource use. By supporting early-stage innovations, SDTC aimed to drive environmental processes while fostering economic growth.

At its best, SDTC represented the kind of forward-thinking policy Canadians expect from their government. It was instrumental in supporting breakthroughs across various sectors. In the energy sector, it facilitated advancements in renewable energy, energy storage and efficiency. In agriculture, it championed projects that improved sustainability, reduced emissions and conserved water. In transportation, it promoted innovations that reduced the carbon footprint of public transit and supported the transition to electric mobility.

Beyond providing the funding, SDTC acted as a bridge between diverse stakeholders, industry, academia, researchers and government agencies. By fostering collaboration, it accelerated the development and commercialization of technologies that benefited not just Canada but also the global community. This collaborative approach was essential for turning ambitious ideas into practical solutions.

However, under the government's watch, SDTC strayed far from its noble purpose. Instead of being a model of innovation and environmental stewardship, it became a glaring example of mismanagement and ethical lapses. The Auditor General's recent findings reveal a shocking misuse of nearly $400 million in taxpayer funds.

This is not merely an administrative failure. It is an ethical crisis that demands immediate action. The Auditor General's report details a pattern of conflicts of interest that would be unacceptable in any organization, let alone one funded by public taxpayer money.

Of the $400 million allocated, $334 million went to projects linked to board members with clear conflicts of interest. Nine board members were implicated in a staggering 186 conflicts. They were using their positions to approve funding for projects that directly benefited themselves or their associates.

One particularly shocking case involved a board member who, at the same time, ran a venture capital firm. This individual approved $114 million in funding for companies her firm had previously invested in, directly enriching herself and her business. Such blatant self-dealing is not only unethical, but it also undermines public confidence in the very institutions designed to serve the public good.

The systematic nature of these abuses is further underscored by the Auditor General's findings. Of the 405 transactions approved by SDTC's board over five years, the Auditor General reviewed 226. Of these, 82% involved conflicts of interest. That is 82% of the 226 that were reviewed. This staggering figure reveals a governance structure riddled with ethical lapses and a lack of oversight.

The mismanagement does not stop there. The Auditor General found that $58 million was allocated to projects that did not meet the program's qualifying criteria. These funds were disbursed without proper contribution agreements, which is a clear indication of administrative negligence.

The Liberal government's industry minister, who is tasked with the oversight of SDTC, failed to implement the necessary checks and balances. This oversight failure enabled nearly half a billion dollars to be mismanaged. When confronted with these findings, the government's response was not to accept accountability or implement corrective measures. Instead, it chose to obstruct efforts to uncover the truth.

Despite a parliamentary order requiring the release of unredacted documents related to SDTC, the government has refused to comply. Departments, such as Finance Canada, the Treasury Board Secretariat, and Innovation, Science and Economic Development, have withheld critical information, either redacting key details or refusing to produce the documents entirely. This refusal is not just an administrative oversight. It is a direct challenge to parliamentary authority and, by extension, to the Canadian people.

The Speaker of the House has ruled that the government's actions violate parliamentary privilege, yet the obstruction persists, raising serious questions about the government's commitment to transparency and accountability. The consequences of this scandal are not limited to the financial mismanagement of SDTC. They extend to the broader economic and social challenges facing Canadians today.

The misuse of public funds comes at a time when families are struggling to make ends meet. Inflation has driven up the cost of living, making it harder for Canadians to afford basic necessities such as food and housing. The cost of groceries has skyrocketed, with the average family expected to spend an additional $700 this year compared to 2023.

Food insecurity is on the rise, with Stats Canada reporting an increase from 11.6% in 2018 to 15.6% in 2022. Visits to food banks have surged by 50% since 2021, highlighting the growing number of Canadians who cannot afford to feed their families. The Cranbrook Foodbank Society has had so many people needing its services. It used to provide three bags of groceries to people, and now, with the increase in demand, the huge numbers of families and individuals needing help, it can only hand out one bag.

Housing affordability has reached the crisis point. Families are living in cars because they cannot afford rent, and young Canadians are staying at home longer because they cannot afford to buy a house. Rising crime rates add to the sense of insecurity and frustration felt by many communities.

These challenges are amplified by the government's policies. The carbon tax, for example, has increased costs across the supply chain, affecting farmers, ranchers, truckers and consumers alike. Economists have warned that this tax imposes a significant burden on families already struggling with inflation. Meanwhile, the inflationary spending of the government has driven up prices across the board, eroding the purchasing power of Canadian households.

The $400 million that was misused in this scandal could have been directed towards addressing these pressing issues. It could have funded affordable housing projects, supported food security initiatives or enhanced public safety programs. Instead, it was squandered on projects that served the interests of a privileged few, enriching Liberal insiders at the expense of ordinary Canadians. This scandal is not just about money. It us about trust. Canadians expect their government to act in their best interests, to manage public funds responsibly and to uphold the highest ethical standards. When those expectations are not met, the very foundation of our democracy is called into question.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes in a different approach. We believe in transparency, accountability and fiscal responsibility. Canadians deserve a government that respects their tax dollars and invests them wisely. They deserve leaders who prioritize their needs over political self-interest.

The refusal to release the SDTC documents is not just a bureaucratic failure; it is a morale failure. It delays justice, obstructs accountability and prevents Parliament from addressing the real issues that affect Canadians. Parliament must act decisively to address the systematic issues that allowed this scandal to occur. The government must comply with the Speaker's order and release the unredacted documents related to SDTC.

Canadians are watching closely, and they expect their elected representatives to rise to the occasion. The call for transparency and accountability is not about political parties or ideological divides. It transcends partisanship because it speaks to the very essence of good governance. These principles form the foundation of a healthy democracy and are critical to maintaining the trust between citizens and those they elect to serve. When public trust is undermined, so too is the legitimacy of our democratic institutions, making the restoration of that trust not only necessary but also urgent.

In this chamber, we hold a profound responsibility, a responsibility to act in the best interests of people who have entrusted us with their votes. This means ensuring that every dollar of public money is allocated ethically, spent effectively and accounted for transparently. This means recognizing that the people of Canada deserve more than big assurances and cloudy processes. They deserve a government that is forthright, principled and unafraid to confront its own failures.

The issue before us is not simply about numbers or stats. It is about values. Mismanagement of public funds erodes more than just the financial health of our nation. It erodes confidence in the very system that is meant to serve the public. When scandals emerge, such as those surrounding Sustainable Development Technology Canada, they do more than waste resources. They weaken the belief that the government operates in the interests of all Canadians, not just a select few.

The House must rise to meet this moment by reaffirming its unwavering commitment to transparency and accountability. These are not optional virtues. They are the cornerstones of democracy. Without them, the ties that bind citizens to their government fray, leaving space for cynicism and disengagement to take root. Canadians must see that their representatives are united in their determination to uphold these principles, no matter how difficult or politically inconvenient it may be.

The people of Canada are looking to us to restore trust, and trust cannot be demanded. It must be earned. It requires us to demand answers when questions arise, to push for the investigations when irregularities are discovered, and to ensure consequences for those who express outrage. We must deliver outcomes. That is what accountability looks like and that is what the people of Canada deserve. By taking a firm stand now, we can demonstrate that Canada's democracy is resilient. It is strong enough to withstand scrutiny, bold enough to demand answers and principled enough to hold even the most powerful leaders accountable.

The strength is not given. It reflects the collective will of the House to act in the interests of the nation rather than the interests of political expediency. This moment is an opportunity to prove that our institutions are worthy of the trust placed in them. It is a chance to reaffirm the democratic values that define us as a nation and to show Canadians that their voices matter.

The House must seize the opportunity not just to address the issue at hand but to send a broader message that the integrity of our democracy is non-negotiable. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to protect and uphold the principles that underpin democracy. This is not just about recovering lost funds or addressing specific incidents of wrongdoing. It is about preserving the integrity of our system of governance for generations to come. Let us take a moment to recommit ourselves to that duty and show Canadians that we are worthy of their trust.

On July 10, the elected House, representing the will of Canadians, ordered the government to release all relevant documents tied to the green slush fund. That deadline has come and gone, and 166 days later, we are still waiting. This blatant disregard for parliamentary orders shows how little respect the Liberal government has for the institution. Canadians deserve transparency and accountability.