Debates of Nov. 26th, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, I will say happy birthday as well.

The question is completely fair. Canadians sent us here to be their voice and hold the government to account. Anyone who is not in cabinet has a role to play in holding the government to account. That is what we are doing here. I think it is time for members on the Liberal side to do the same. I made a reference to the foundation. If members are sitting back and allowing that foundation to crumble or to be sledgehammered by the Prime Minister, that is an act of omission.

The reason the government is covering this up is that, obviously, someone somewhere did something very bad. Instead of opening up and being transparent with Canadians, as the open-by-default Prime Minister said sunshine was the best disinfectant, they are protecting the powerful.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place and represent my constituents of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

Today, I am adding my voice regarding the subamendment to the privilege motion relating to the Auditor General's findings. These revelations indicate that Liberal insiders at Sustainable Development Technology Canada allocated nearly $400 million in taxpayer money to their businesses, resulting in over 186 conflicts of interest. I am frustrated that, at a time when many Canadians are struggling to afford necessities like food, heating and housing, we are forced to repeatedly confront ongoing corruption within the Liberal government.

SDTC was a federal foundation that was supposed to support small and medium-sized businesses in the clean-technology sector by funding projects that work to develop technology that benefits the environment. The Liberals would ask was SDTC not started by the Conservatives. It absolutely was. In 2017, it received a clean bill of health from the Auditor General when that audit was done. What went so wrong between 2017 and 2023? The Liberal government appointed Liberal insiders to the board of Sustainable Development Technology Canada who violated conflict of interest laws and turned SDTC into a slush fund for Liberal elites. Everything the Liberals seem to touch becomes embroiled in corruption and scandal.

In light of the alarming discoveries about the mishandling of these funds, the Auditor General launched an investigation into the green slush fund and the awarding of contracts since 2017. What she found is that Liberal insiders were funnelling taxpayer money into their own companies to the tune of $400 million. Let us keep in mind that is just what she audited. She did not audit the entire workings of this fund, so who knows how many other millions of dollars have been misappropriated by these insiders?

What makes things worse is the fact that Cycle Capital, a company the Liberal Minister of Environment and Climate Change was a lobbyist for, was given $10 million from the green slush fund. This funding was approved by a board member who also had shares in this company and is a close friend of that minister. Not only that, she has admitted to the committee that several of her other companies received millions of dollars from the green slush fund while she sat on the board.

In addition to the $400 million lost and the 186 conflicts of interest, the Auditor General's report contains findings that paint a picture of Liberal incompetence, disregard for the law and a lack of respect for public funds. The Auditor General's report found that the Liberal-appointed directors of the green slush fund “did not ensure that the foundation complied with its enabling legislation.” In other words, the Liberal-appointed board of directors did nothing to make sure they followed the law when awarding millions of taxpayer dollars to companies.

What is even more outrageous is that the report specifically states that the Liberal Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry did not sufficiently monitor the contracts and failed to fulfill his obligations to assess any conflicts of interest with respect to the green slush fund. I really wonder how on earth the minister failed to monitor contracts containing 186 conflicts of interest. He did not just not monitor one contract, but failed to do it 186 times.

In addition, the assistant deputy minister from that minister's department called the green slush fund “free money”, saying, “there's a lot of sloppiness and laziness, and there's some outright incompetence, and the situation is...untenable at this point”. What a glowing review after nine years of the NDP-Liberals.

It is simply outrageous that, for a fund dedicated to supporting the development of new sustainable technology, $59 million of this green slush fund went to 10 ineligible projects. To quote the Auditor General, these projects, “did not support the development or demonstration of a new technology, or the projected environmental benefits were unreasonable.”

Not only was taxpayer money misappropriated by Liberal insiders, but it was also given to projects not even relevant to the goals of the fund. Even worse, the Auditor General estimated that during the time the audit was taking place, one in 10 new projects approved were also ineligible for funding. It is unfathomable that Liberal insiders continued to misappropriate funds, despite being under active investigation by the Auditor General for that very crime. Ultimately, it is clear these findings by the Auditor General are very serious, and Conservatives believe Canadians deserve to know the full extent of this Liberal corruption. That is why, on June 10, Conservatives put forward a motion calling for all documents related to the green slush fund to be tabled within 30 days and then turned over to the RCMP. This motion passed in the House, despite the Liberals' desperate attempts to vote it down.

It is worth noting that the motion that was passed by the House is binding. It is not just a mere suggestion, and it is certainly not optional. The Liberals responded to this motion on July 17, August 21 and September 16, but tabled only partial disclosures, owing either to redactions or to the withholding of documents. In other instances, the House order was met with a complete refusal. According to the Speaker's own ruling, the law clerk reported that the Liberals had not complied with the House order by the stipulated deadline of 30 days following the adoption of the motion. In response to the Liberals' refusal to disclose the documents, the House leader of the official opposition raised the question of privilege, arguing the House's powers to order the production of documents should be absolute and the government cannot disregard this binding order.

As parliamentarians, we have a right to ask for any documents to be produced that are necessary for us to fulfill our duties to Canadians. Therefore, on September 26, the Speaker ruled that the Liberals' failure to produce documents relating to the green slush fund scandal constituted a prima facie breach of privilege and as such, all debates are suspended until this matter is resolved. We are sitting here five months after and are continuing to debate this because the conditions of the opposition motion passed by the House in June have not been met.

Today, we are debating the subamendment put forward by my colleague, the MP for Calgary Rocky Ridge. The subamendment states that once this motion has passed through the House, the committee studying this question of privilege must report back to the House within 30 sitting days, unless the government tables all of the documents fully unredacted before that time. This Conservative subamendment ensures Canadians can get the answers they deserve in a timely manner. I want to be clear: we are not the ones who decided that Parliament had to debate this privilege motion, paralyzing other business in the House. It is the Speaker who ruled that the government violated the privilege of the House. It was the Liberal government that decided not to abide by the motion passed by the House and to ignore the Speaker's subsequent ruling. This is why we are continuing to debate this motion. It was not the Conservative Party's decision. It was the decision of the Liberal government.

There is a troubling pattern with these Liberals. Repeatedly, vital information is withheld from Canadians and the official opposition. The government obstructs Conservatives from accessing information regarding fiscal mismanagement and scandals. Canadians have a right to know precisely how their money is being spent. According to the Speaker's own ruling, “The House has the undoubted right to order the production of any...documents from any entity or individual it deems necessary to carry out its duties.” He continues, “The House has clearly ordered the production of certain documents, and that order has clearly not been fully complied with.”

If the Liberals have nothing to do with this $400-million scandal, they should be as concerned as the rest of us about this gross waste of taxpayer money, and fight to hold those responsible accountable for their actions. Instead, they have violated parliamentary privilege, preventing us from fulfilling our duties to Canadians.

Parliamentary privilege is the individual and collective right that we as members of the House of Commons have, which allows us to effectively carry out our principal functions to legislate, deliberate and hold the government to account. In Canada, parliamentary privilege is part of our Constitution, as it is essential for maintaining the power and authority of the House and allowing members of Parliament to represent their constituents fully.

The House of Commons is an institution that represents the voice of the people. We cannot legislate, speak or make decisions on behalf of the Canadian people if we do not have a full picture of any given situation or do not have the freedom to speak freely about any given topic. This is why parliamentary privilege is so important. It provides parliamentarians with the rights and freedoms necessary to do our jobs. When parliamentary privilege is breached, it means that the government has disregarded and broken the constitutionally guaranteed right of parliamentarians. This question of privilege goes beyond Liberal corruption. It is about preserving the integrity of the institution of Parliament. Nobody in this country is above the law.

On October 4, RCMP Commissioner Duheme confirmed that there is an ongoing investigation into the green slush fund. It is shameful. The Liberals think they can obstruct an RCMP investigation by withholding these documents, using a flimsy argument that such a motion calls for the documents to be turned over to the RCMP, thereby making the motion inadmissible. In the Speaker's ruling, he agreed that “It is indeed unusual, novel and unprecedented for the House to order documents not for its own purposes but for a third party.” However, the Speaker also added, “I believe the best way for this to be achieved would be to follow the usual course for a prima facie question of privilege...”

It is both unusual and unprecedented for the RCMP to have to investigate a government regarding such a significant number of conflicts of interest and misappropriation of funds. It is perplexing for a government that asserts it is not accountable for this scandal, and to take such extensive measures to conceal the truth rather than advocating for Canadians to uncover what really happened.

By failing to comply with the production order, the message to the Canadian public is clear. The Liberals are complicit in this wrongdoing and corruption and have something to hide. That is how it would appear to the public. The RCMP must have access to the full, unredacted documents ordered by the House so that they can investigate the corruption that has been all too common under the Liberal government.

The Liberals are raising concerns that the Speaker's order could infringe on the charter right specifically regarding police investigations and privacy but let us be clear. It is the Liberals who are abusing their power by refusing to comply with an order of the House. They claim that we are the ones violating, or potentially violating, section 8 of the charter, which safeguards privacy against unreasonable search and seizure.

However, the reality is that there is minimal, if any, expectation of privacy regarding these documents. They were generated by public servants, using taxpayer funds, and are therefore the property of the public. Contrary to claims made by the Liberals, advocating for transparency does not undermine privacy or due process. Instead, there is a demand for accountability.

The House order does not force the RCMP to take any specific action on the documents. Having served in law enforcement for 35 years, let me explain the way these investigations could work. A complainant generally turns over the documents to the police to investigate. The government is not acting like a complainant in this matter. It is acting more like an accused. The government has a responsibility to turn over evidence to law enforcement and let the evidence dictate the best course of action by law enforcement and the justice system.

However, for some reason, the Liberals have completely refused to provide Canadians with the answers they rightfully deserve, actively obstructing a criminal investigation into the misappropriation of funds. Are they worried about what the RCMP might find? It certainly appears that way. Do they actually believe Canadians will not see right through that?

They say they had nothing to do with the missing $400 million, yet they are doing nothing to figure out what actually happened. Taxpayer money is the property of the Canadian people. It should be allocated for the benefit of Canadians and not as a spending account for the Liberals and their well-off friends, especially at a time when so many Canadians are struggling to keep their head above water.

Nobody has a choice as to whether they pay taxes. I should not have to tell the members opposite that, at a bare minimum, taxpayer money should go toward what the government says it is supposed to go to and not to line the pockets of well-connected Liberals and friends of the Liberal Party.

In the Prime Minister's 2015 campaign, he promised to create the most open and transparent government ever. However, talk is cheap. Why will he not follow through with his promise and provide the unredacted documents to the RCMP, ensuring transparency for Canadians? Is it simply another broken promise he can add to his long list after nine years? I really wonder whether the Liberals have done anything right in the last nine years?

Canadians are sick of the rising cost of living and the crime, chaos and corruption caused by the ineffective policies of the current government. For the past nine years, the Prime Minister has led the most ethically compromised government in Canadian history.

Our nation is ready for change and for a government that will ensure common-sense leadership. Canadians deserve a government that is committed to accountability and transparency, one that does not use Canadians' hard-earned money to line the pockets of its own insider friends. If the Liberals cannot commit to turning over these documents to the RCMP, they should call an election and let Canadians decide what sort of leadership they really want.

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

Madam Speaker, the member opposite actually used the RCMP as a source to reference in making his speech. Members might allow me to do the same. Regarding the documents that the Conservative Party wants us to give directly to the RCMP, the RCMP commissioner responded, “There is significant risk that the Motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.” That is coming from the RCMP. We also have the Auditor General and other legal experts.

Let us realize what the Conservatives are asking the government to do. They are saying to disregard what the RCMP, the Auditor General of Canada and the other legal experts are saying and, by the way, listen to the all-hailed leader of the Conservative Party, who has a self-interest in this issue. They want us to believe the Conservatives. I refuse to do so. I will listen to the RCMP, the Auditor General and other legal experts.

Why will the member not do likewise and reinforce that those are the institutions that we should at least be listening to regarding the motion?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, when I rose in the House some weeks ago and spoke to the other subamendment, the government House leader or whip or whatever their title is asked a similar question from the RCMP. What is interesting is that, as I understand how this should work for the RCMP to investigate the government, my concern is this: If the Liberals have nothing to hide, whose charter rights are they concerned about breaching? If the Liberals are saying that Liberal insiders, ministers and those in government have nothing to do with what is going on in this corruption, then they should have no issue with turning over unredacted documents to the RCMP. They should do that on their own. The other thing is this: If the Liberals are protecting someone who is inside, they should absolutely be concerned. However, and this is a very important point, the government should act as a complainant in this particular matter, which it is as caretaker for the taxpayer money.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

If I may finish, Madam Speaker, I am just about done.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member can add to it in the answer to the next question.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, speaking of the use of public funds, we recently learned that the leader of the Conservative Party wants to do away with a housing construction fund. We know that 17 Conservative members applied to that program for funding for their communities.

The Conservative leader decided to muzzle those members and prevent them from doing their job by requesting funding that is there to help alleviate the housing crisis. To top it all off, we learned from The Hill Times that Carleton, the municipality that the Conservative leader represents, received $44 million under that program.

I would like to know whether my Conservative colleague thinks that his leader did his job or failed to do his job by defending the City of Carleton for using a fund that he wants to abolish.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure of the connection that my NDP friend is trying to make to SDTC and the fraud that was going on there, other than to maybe suggest that there may also be some concerns with the building fund that the Liberals are touting, which has not seen anything built yet. Is there or is there not corruption there? I do not know.

I want to talk about why we are here on this privilege motion. On only what she was able to study, the Auditor General found that $400 million was misappropriated. I am concerned that there may be millions or hundreds of millions more dollars from this green slush fund over the course of six years that this continued on, since the Liberals changed the leadership of this group, the board. There may be millions more in misappropriated funds that we do not even know about yet.

That is what we need to focus on as Canadians. It is taxpayer money, not the government's money.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the member had to say about this issue. I actually question the motivation on the other side. I am a little harsher on this than perhaps he is, mostly because of what I hear from my constituents.

I want to mention that, very early on in the government's existence, it brought forward a bill around an environmental framework. The Liberals just brought it to the House to be debated. On the first day of debate, it was very clear that they were bringing in things that were not normal, such as a freshly sweeping power to the minister and accountability to an advisory board, rather than to the House.

I questioned the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country about what this board would look like. There were all kinds of questions around it. What would their mandate be? How long would they be there?

The member could not wait to stand up and say that the board had already been chosen. That was at the beginning of the government's mandate. Now we have these things happening.

What, in this circumstance, would tell us that the government values taxpayers' money or the rights and responsibilities of this place?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, over the nine years we have had the current government, it has become quite clear that the government has absolute, complete contempt for the taxpayers in this country.

We can go through dozens of examples in which it has taken advantage of and completely wasted hard-earned taxpayer money. SDTC is an example of that. It had a board already pre-selected early on; surprise, it was full of Liberal insiders. If that does not raise alarm bells, then people are asleep over there. Obviously, they have been, as indicated by the 186 conflicts of interest that the minister did not even recognize with their own board members and their own companies that did not belong to any sustainable fund, fund priorities or goals of this fund. This reeks and smells of criminality to me.

I would hope that the government, as much as it is trying to protect itself from this and from the embarrassment, will see that the Canadian public thinks it is complicit in this because of the fact that it is stonewalling the release of documents. If the government is actually not complicit, then it should turn over the unredacted documents and try to restore some of the Canadian public's faith in the government. That is going to be tough to do.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, my colleague gave a great speech. I think about all the scandals that have plagued the Liberal government over the years, such as the WE Charity, the recent other Randy fiasco and all these things that have happened. Could the member just take a minute to recount some of the ways we cannot trust the Liberal government to do anything?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are so many scandals that come to mind that I may forget a couple if I start trying to recite them all. My constituents ask me how the current government has lasted so long and tell me it is time to get rid of it and that it has shown nothing but contempt for taxpayers. I tell them that one of the experiences I found most troubling when I arrived in Ottawa was the attitude of entitlement and arrogance I found in government. I found that troubling, and my constituents feel exactly the same way. Scandal after scandal shows the absolute and utter disregard for the Canadian public. We should have a government that is for the people. The Liberal government has turned out to be a government of the people, and there is a significant difference.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about our oh-so-beloved Liberal government and, more specifically, about the problem that we have been discussing for several weeks now, namely the infamous $400 million that was diverted to Liberal cronies.

Those funds came from a program that worked flawlessly from 2001 to 2016 or 2017. What happened at that point? There was a change of government. All of a sudden, the Liberal government did what it usually does and started rewarding its cronies. That is why we have a major issue with the $400 million that has gone missing. The money that disappeared into the pockets of Liberal friends is our money. What does that tell us? It tells us how little interest the Prime Minister has in financial matters, although we have known that for quite a while now.

It also tells us that he has little interest in security matters. Last week, we saw a telling example of how the Prime Minister handles situations that people in Canada are experiencing. On Friday, things got intense in Montreal. Protesters started smashing things in front of the convention centre, where a NATO Parliamentary Assembly meeting was taking place, attended by members of the association I belong to. Meanwhile, what was the Prime Minister up to? The Prime Minister was dancing in front of Taylor Swift.

He was playing with his little bracelets while Montreal was burning. This is a powerful symbol that proves the Prime Minister does not act like an adult, let alone like a prime minister. Violent, destructive riots have been going on in Canadian communities for months now. Instead of taking action, the Prime Minister did not even take a few minutes' break from dancing the night away to issue the following statement:

What we saw on the streets of Montreal last night was appalling. Acts of antisemitism, intimidation, and violence must be condemned wherever we see them. The RCMP are in communication with local police. There must be consequences, and rioters held accountable.

That nice tweet was posted on his page. He probably did not even see the message before his staff posted it. That brief message was posted on X, so he figured his work was done and he could keep dancing and having fun. Everyone saw the pictures. It was really something.

Some will say that the Prime Minister has the right to go and see a concert with his daughter. Of course, but the Prime Minister has a fundamental responsibility. When a major incident happens in the country, he has a duty to stop having fun himself and tell his daughter to keep going with her friends. He should then go and see what is happening and deal with the situation. That is not what happened. We know the Prime Minister has the resources. He has his security team by his side. He has a command post. He can visit in person to see what is going on and decide what needs to be done. Instead, he simply carried on having fun, as though nothing had happened. For the past nine years, the Prime Minister of Canada has been perceived as someone who is not serious.

Terry Glavin from the National Post said the same thing in October. Referring to groups that are causing problems in Canada, he wrote, and I quote, “Such hateful rhetoric is unacceptable. This has no place in Canada. All options must be considered. This is not who we are. We are treating this with the utmost urgency.”

As Mr. Glavin writes, “For more than four years, this is what we have been hearing from the Liberal government about the bloodcurdling incitements that are the stock in trade of the Vancouver-headquartered Samidoun Network, the overseas agitation and propaganda wing of the terrorist-listed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.”

According to a newspaper article, in August, the Minister of Public Safety stated that federal departments are currently examining how two men suspected of having ties to a foreign terrorist group were allowed to enter Canada and, worse still, to obtain Canadian citizenship. Ahmed Fouad Mostafa Eldidi, 62, and his son Mostafa Eldidi, 26, were arrested in Richmond Hill, Ontario. They face nine separate terrorism charges, including conspiracy to commit murder on behalf of the Islamic State, a terrorist group. The RCMP announced the charges and said the two men were in the advanced stages of planning a serious, violent attack in Toronto.

What I just read out is an example of the government's incompetence. Videos clearly show this man committing barbaric acts with the armed group Islamic State. He came to Canada and became a Canadian citizen.

How can the United States trust Canada when Canada gets into situations like these? That is just one example among many. The Americans are very nervous, and rightly so. Just think: Canada let in a member of the Islamic State who then became a Canadian citizen. There is even video evidence to support it. No one can wrap their heads around it.

In July, the National Post reported that U.S. senator Marco Rubio and his colleagues had sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, urging him to beef up precautions along the Canada-U.S. border. Why? It was because Canada had recently increased the number of refugees allowed to enter the country on temporary resident visas from Palestinian territories, including Gaza and the West Bank. The letter cited concerns that this would allow Gazans with possible ties to terrorists to enter the U.S. via Canada. With so few reliable records or background checks available, Canada's decision will turn the northern border into a much bigger national security issue.

All of the Liberal government's decisions bring us back to this debate. Since 2015, the Prime Minister has made it so that nothing works. I am thinking, for example, of the $400 million from the green slush fund that was given to friends, rather than being used to help companies develop green technologies. That is corruption. I am also thinking about how our public safety is threatened because of the decisions made by various jurisdictions. That is not working at all. No wonder our American neighbours are nervous. There is no shortage of examples. This is not necessarily coming from President Trump. It is coming from his administration, from people who work on border security and national defence. These people are meeting with us and asking us what is happening in Canada because things are no longer working. They are very nervous. They are worried about what is happening here and what could come their way.

I cannot say it better than my leader, who addressed the Prime Minister directly on Friday. Here is the message that the Leader of the Opposition posted following the riots in Montreal. He said, and I quote:

You act surprised. We are reaping what you sowed.

This is what happens when a Prime Minister spends 9 years pushing toxic woke identity politics, dividing and subdividing people by race, gender, vaccine status, religion, region, age, wealth, etc.

On top of driving people apart, you systematically break what used to bring us together, saying Canada is a “post-national state” with “no core identity.”

You erased our veterans and military, the Famous Five and even Terry Fox from our passport to replace them with meaningless squirrels, snowflakes and a drawing of yourself swimming as a boy.

You opened the borders to terrorists and lawbreakers and called anyone who questioned it racist.

You send out your MPs to say one thing in a mosque and the opposite in a synagogue, one thing in a mandir and the opposite in a gurdwara.

You have made Canada a playground for foreign interference. You allowed Iran's IRGC terrorists to legally operate here for four years after they murdered 55 of our citizens in a major unprovoked attack.

You passed laws that release rampant offenders from prison within hours of their 80th arrest.

And what is the result? Assassinations on Canadian soil, firebombings of synagogues, extremist violence against mandirs and gurdwaras, over 100 churches burned or vandalized (with barely any condemnation from you), all for a total 251% more hate crime.

And, while you were dancing, Montreal was burning.

Every corner of the country has seen a huge increase in violence and crime. This increase has affected women in particular. This self-proclaimed feminist government seems to be heading in the wrong direction. Since 2015, since the arrival of this woke Prime Minister, violent crime has increased by 50%.

Statistics from Statistics Canada on Canadian women, children and the most vulnerable show that the total number of sexual assaults at all three levels has increased by 74.83%. The total number of sexual offences against children has increased by 118%. Forcible confinement and kidnapping has increased by 11%. Indecent and harassing communications have increased by 86%.

Non-consensual distribution of intimate images is up 801%. Trafficking in persons is up 84%. Of all sexual assault cases, 90% of victims are women.

The Prime Minister always talks a good game about his desire to protect Canadians, but it is all nonsense. He talks the talk, but never walks the walk, unless it is initiatives that make life easier for criminals. Take Bill C‑83, for example. I did an interview about this today actually, because in my region, Quebec City, there has been a lot of talk lately about what is happening in prisons, about how the situation is out of control, about how incarcerated criminals are no longer monitored as they used to be because of the legislation stemming from Bill C‑83, which came into force in 2019. Correctional officers are afraid for their lives. It is total chaos inside the walls. That is a whole other issue, but this just got me thinking about the long list of problems related to how criminals are dealt with in Canada.

In the Prime Minister's world, who gets arrested? Journalists get arrested. Journalists were arrested last week while certain violent criminals, following the passage of Bill C-5, have been allowed to serve their sentences at home, watching Netflix, even if they committed aggravated sexual assault. It is unbelievable.

No man on the Liberal side had the courage to stand up and say what needed to be said, to tell the Prime Minister that he was heading in the wrong direction. Some women had that courage. What happened to them? The Liberals gave three of them the boot.

As far as the Bloc Québécois and the NDP are concerned, my main criticism of them with respect to criminal justice concerns their support for Bill C‑5, the infamous bill that lets offenders be sentenced to house arrest, and Bill C‑75, which lets them get bail. A person can be arrested four or five times in one day and released every time. Criminals all across Canada and Quebec are rolling on the ground laughing, especially in the Montreal area. No one is afraid of the justice system anymore because of laws put in place by the Liberals and supported, unfortunately, by my colleagues from the other parties.

This incompetent government is being kept in power by the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. The Bloc Québécois has made it clear that it no longer has confidence, but we do not get the impression that its members are all prepared to vote in favour of a non-confidence motion. The NDP made a big show of tearing up the agreement and even produced a little video about it. To make sure they did not mess things up, the NDP made a video. In the end, now it is clear that it was pointless. They are still supporting the Liberals. We hope that they will show some courage, scrape together enough money to run a campaign, get a conscience, put Canadians first and put their money where their mouths are by saying they are finally done with this government and voting non-confidence so we can have an election.

Canadians will vote for whomever they want. If a Conservative government is fortunate enough to be voted in, we will be there to get Canada back on the right track.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague represents his constituents well, and I am curious what he is hearing at the doors and on the phone from his constituents about the Liberals' failure to hand over the unredacted documents to show transparency about the corrupt green slush fund.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague who is very engaged in helping protect women and works to ensure that we have stronger laws for protecting women from violence.

To answer her question, I talk to people every weekend when I am in my riding. The first question they ask me is when will there be an election so that we can get a new prime minister.

Then, the current corruption problems involving documents from the SDTC green fund is something that people find hard to understand. Many have told me that it is worse than the sponsorship scandal. The sponsorship scandal, in 2005, involved $40 million. Here we are talking about $400 million. They say it is 10 times more and it is their money. They wonder if they will ever be able to recover that money. They wonder why the Liberals do not want to hand over the documents to the RCMP. That is what people are wondering and asking about.

Unfortunately, we have no answer for them except to say that we will continue to debate the issues here.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is often noted by political commentators that Canadians are losing confidence in our democratic institutions, such as our courts and electoral system, and now Parliament. I wonder if my colleague could comment on what happens to this confidence, or lack thereof, when the governing party refuses to comply with an order of this Parliament, which is definitely within its power to be able to order.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, we do have an order of Parliament here. We have been debating this issue for eight weeks now. Basically, we are waiting for documents to be produced.

People are wondering why the government refuses to comply. They cannot understand why the Prime Minister's power is above Parliament. Parliament belongs to the people. We are here to represent 41 million Canadians. People are saying that this is supposed to be a democracy. Parliament should be stronger than everything else, but that is not what is happening right now.

This is creating a trust problem. Every day, the government adds another layer to this trust problem. At some point, people will begin to think that no one can be trusted. If the Parliament of Canada cannot be trusted, who can we trust in this country? That is what happens in situations like this.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, in my colleague's last response, he talked about something that is very important, which is trust. Can Canadians trust the government? The current government alone is responsible for over a third of all scandals across the Canadian Parliament from the very beginning. When we see one government responsible for that much scandal, how can Canadians trust it?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, trust is the foundation. Trust should be the basis of everything in politics. We are here to represent the people. When we get elected, people put their trust in us and tell themselves that we are going to represent them in the House of Commons. When a government is elected, regardless of its political stripe, people say that we should trust the government that is in power. However, that is not what has been happening since 2015.

People have realized that they can no longer trust this government. When we look at the polls, even though we never talk about polls in politics, the fact remains that we are not crazy. For the past year and a half, we have clearly seen that Canadians are fed up with this government and this Prime Minister and that they no longer have any confidence in them. That is unfortunate for democracy and for the country, but the good news is that we will soon be taking the government's place.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, my colleague said that in the last year and a half people have come to the realization that they cannot trust the government. I would bring to mind a bill that came before this House on the environment in the current government's first year. That bill talked about giving more power to the minister and giving power to an outside governing body. When I asked the member speaking about it what that outside governing body would look like, he said that the government already had it in place. That was at the beginning of the government. What does the member have to say about the level of frustration that has built from the beginning of this government until now?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, the current trademark of the Liberal government is to set up structures and systems that are completely independent of Parliament or the government, while hiring 109,000 new public servants and creating a megastructure of employees to manage government business. There are two things happening. On the one hand, there are external structures and external companies that are paid $20 billion a year to manage government affairs. They like to call it strategic advice. On the other hand, the civil service is being increased by 40%. There is a lack of coherence there.

What does that tell us about this government? It tells us that it has no confidence in the institution and its government team. At the same time, it is expanding it dramatically, while still shipping business to outside companies. No one really knows how this works, and no one really knows what is going on. This lack of transparency means that, once again, trust is broken.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Quebec, who made a good speech here in the House of Commons. I always enjoy his speeches.

My question is this. How much money will we find in the documents that the Liberals must hand over to Parliament as soon as possible?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question.

How much money is going to be found? We know that $400 million was misappropriated. That $400 million disappeared and we know that it went to friends. Now, we need to know precisely who received the money and how. We know that at least $400 million can be found. Often, when we have access to the documents, when we can see the information, we notice that even more money was given, without us realizing it.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will continue in the same vein.

We know that the Auditor General looked at a portion of the documents. She stopped because it was a repetition of the amounts that had been allocated to people who were in conflict of interest.

I have the following question for my colleague. I think that the Auditor General felt that she had evaluated nearly 40% or 60% of all the data. Inevitably, that means that the $400-million amount could actually be much higher. Is my colleague aware of that?