Debates of Nov. 4th, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I am going to stop the clock here for a second and note for members on both sides that there was a time for questions and comments. If we are fortunate, we might be able to get another question in. Please rise if you would like to ask a question. The Chair will recognize you as long as there is time to do so.

The hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, for four weeks now, while we have been debating this privilege motion, we have been hearing specious arguments from the Liberal side of the House saying, “Oh, maybe this order made back in June is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” It is a little late to be advancing those arguments, after the Speaker has made his ruling supporting the motion. I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment on that, and on what other options might be open to the Liberals today if they really believe in those charter arguments, such as perhaps suing the Speaker and taking it to court.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to hide something. I would love this to be the seminal case that goes to the Supreme Court about testing the privacy rights of individuals who have had their documents confidentially exposed by an order of the House when it is within its due right to get the documents. If that goes to the Supreme Court to test the government's position and the fact that someone might be held accountable for this $400 million, I would very much welcome it. How is that for an answer?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise again in the House. It has been over a month that the House of Commons has been paralyzed. The Liberals are not able to advance a single piece of legislation in the House; quite frankly, I am not complaining about that part, after the last nine years and a lot of things they have done. The number one question that remains in my mind as I begin my comments today is this: What are they hiding? What damning information about their unethical conduct, when it comes to the $400-million green slush fund, is so bad they are willing to shut down the regular business of Parliament to avoid the RCMP having all of the documents, unredacted, so it can complete a criminal investigation into the Liberal government's green slush fund?

I am speaking again and we are refusing to back down to the Liberals' demand that we push this over to a parliamentary committee to study and think about it, not to hand the documents over but to debate whether they have to or not. It makes one wonder why they are willing to give up a month of time for their own agenda to hide and cover up from the RCMP getting full access to vet all the documents. It is important to remind Canadians, as Conservatives have been doing, of the magnitude and severity of the unethical and inappropriate behaviour and use of taxpayers' money that the Liberal-appointed insiders gave themselves with this fund.

The Auditor General, whose office is independent of the work we do in the House of Commons, came out with a stunning report. This was the first report, because there was a second, more in-depth report, that was required for Canadians to understand just how corrupt this program was. The report found that $59 million of this program was awarded to projects and companies that were ineligible to receive it. The worst part of all of this was the 186 cases where conflicts of interest existed. What do we mean by that? That comes to $330 million in funds awarded in cases where directors, appointed by the Liberals to this green slush fund board, who were approving their own projects, were not recusing themselves and were giving to themselves or to other directors' projects, 186 times.

Here is the thing: This is a problem of the current Liberal government, which has been propped up by the NDP for several years since we have known about this behaviour and corruption. This is a Liberal-induced problem.

SDTC was a federal program created back in 2001, when Jean Chrétien was prime minister. The program operated under a Liberal government and under nine years of a Conservative government, during which time the Auditor General found no such shoddy business and corruption. It was only in 2017, when the current Liberal government started changing the chair and appointing its own members to the board, that these serious problems and the misuse of taxpayer money started.

There are so many parts I find asinine and insane when it comes to this issue and scandal. To be clear, the Liberals brush this off and say we should take it to a committee and think about it there. They are not at all serious about tackling this problem.

I want to go back to my time in municipal politics. I had the honour of serving in the local level of government for 12 years in the Township of North Dundas: four years as a councillor and eight years as mayor for the township and a member of SDG Counties council, where I had the honour of serving for two years, two terms, as the warden of SDG.

In the oath we take at the municipal level, we commit to declaring any pecuniary interests, which basically means conflicts of interest. For municipal politicians, staff and everyone, this was the number one thing in any orientation. At the beginning of every term when we were elected to office, at conferences, at best practices seminars and at meetings with our legal counsel and others, we were constantly reminded of the need to declare a conflict of interest.

We have an Ethics Commissioner here in Ottawa who goes through members and individuals appointed to boards; this is basic Board Governance 101. We cannot, or should not, sit on a board that advances our financial interests directly, our pecuniary interest. All these terms are explained right at the outset. For the individuals and the Liberal insiders, this is not their first day on the job. It may have been on the board, but they knew what they were doing the day they got in here.

With this board, they go back and forth on approving, 186 times, projects that were a conflict of interest. Again, these are where the voting members of the green slush fund are directors of the businesses and companies applying for money. This was not just one or two times where, oops, sorry, they forgot, they had a busy meeting that day and forgot to recuse themselves. It happened 186 times.

I went through the Auditor General's report. There is just the insanity of all of this; they knew better. This was not a case of, whoops, they did not take the training. Anybody who is on a board in governance, any of the names that are mentioned, where they are directors of these private companies, know the rules. It is ingrained in somebody. They knew the rules; they did not care. They got themselves in an incestuous circle of Liberal insiders, and they did it 186 times, for 330 million dollars' worth of projects approved where this was there.

We can go through the Auditor General's report; it lists the cases in exhibit 6.4. Exhibit 6.4 goes through the 90 cases of conflict of interest. In this case, and as part of it here, it is worth $76 million.

March 29, 2021, was a pretty busy day at that board. It was not just one conflict of interest here or there. The chair, Annette Verschuren, voted to approve $100,000 with a conflict of interest on that meeting date. There is another one on the same day, where she was on another company and gave it $100,000. In the same meeting, NPower, another company, got seed money of $100,000.

On March 10, 2022, a board member on the green slush fund, who also had a company in a conflict of interest, voted to give his company $5 million of taxpayers' money. There are 90 examples that go through the magnitude of the conflicts of interest and the corruption. I make the argument here that Canadians are rightly frustrated. This is not accidental. This is not some sort of circumstance where, whoops, they did not know the rules. They knew exactly what they were doing.

I am drawing my opinion here in the chamber. What has the House said? A majority of members said, earlier this year, through a motion, that the RCMP must have all the documents, unredacted. At the end of the day, they do not get into a case where, based on the information we have and were given, we determined X. The majority of the House said to make sure, to not give an implication or an opinion and to give it the documents for it to do its full criminal investigation, something it confirmed is under way.

Why is this important? For many reasons, it is just a simple matter of fact: All the information must be given for a full investigation; no stone must be left unturned.

Let us go back and remember the Liberal government and its record from just a couple of years ago. On the SNC-Lavalin scandal the Prime Minister found himself in, it was the RCMP saying that, based on the information it had, it would not proceed to lay charges. It is interesting.

They were not given all the information. Cabinet confidants and the Prime Minister blocked certain information from going to the RCMP for a full investigation. We can talk about a conflict of interest there. Parliament has the right to pass the motion, to have it enforced and to have the government comply with it. Parliament reigns supreme and is paramount, and the Speaker's ruling made exactly that clear.

Liberals have tried to change their excuse over the course of the last month about five times, throwing whatever they can at the wall and hoping an argument sticks. Nothing has yet. Canadians want the RCMP to have the full information and to do a full criminal investigation. We do not want another conclusion such as that we had only a couple of years ago under the Prime Minister, when the RCMP did not have the information it needed.

Another part that is important here is actually talking about that past pattern of behaviour. We talk about ethics violations, bad behaviour, not following the rules and only admitting fault after they are caught and found guilty of those ethics violations. There have been several in the past nine years under the government. The Minister of Public Safety was found in violation of ethics laws. A couple of years ago, the Minister of International Trade was as well. Just last week, the Liberal-appointed CBC president was found guilty of breaking ethics laws and fined.

We can believe it or not and say it is not so, but who is the one leading the pack? The Prime Minister himself was found guilty of breaking ethics laws twice. There is a pattern of behaviour that Canadians are getting tired of. When the government came in, back in 2015, it was “open by default” and would have “sunny ways”. It was going to change the way things were done in Ottawa. It changed them, all right, and not for the better.

Liberals are so desperate to avoid accountability and transparency, to avoid complying with what the majority of the House of Commons has said, which to give up all the documents for a full criminal investigation, where no stone is left unturned. They are now so closed by default that they are closing their own business for the last month to avoid all of this. Again, we talk about a pattern of behaviour. A key thing for a government is maintaining trust with Canadians.

I have spoken about the SNC-Lavalin scandal. The WE Charity scandal was another massive ethical challenge and corruption issue, with Liberals working with Liberal insiders to benefit them. At the time, they said it was all about youth during the pandemic. However, it was all about benefiting their friends, and they were caught for that. They talked about “open by default” but then did not follow through.

For the Winnipeg lab documents, there was a Speaker's ruling as well: Over years and years, the government refused to provide full access to all documents so that Canadians can see exactly what the government knew when it knew it and, in the case of what we know, what it did not do to protect our national security and the Canadian people. Again, this broke trust in a major way.

Now, Liberals are advancing and trying to keep the NDP-Liberal coalition alive. We found this out last week, when it was revealed that the NDP was given special access to the Prime Minister's Office and Privy Council Office, in proposing a bill to change Canada's elections laws. The bill is not about adding advance poll dates. It is not about closing loopholes and foreign interference; gaps still exist. It is about moving back the election date by just a week. It so just happens that many NDP and Liberal MPs, who will lose their pension by a day, will have their pension guaranteed. They know they are going to be defeated in the next election.

It is on record. The NDP said that the legislation was part of its deal to keep the coalition intact. It was not to keep it intact because Canadians want it to do that. It was the opposite. It is desperate to avoid Canadians having their say in a carbon tax election.

Now we know why the deal was made. It was not for advance polls, not for any of the other technical measures, but to protect the pensions of the soon-to-be defeated.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the interesting part is that the member for Kingston and the Islands is saying that I am protecting my pension. I am not here for my pension; I am here for Canadians. I do not want to back the election up by a week. I want to call the election now—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am going to ask the member for Kingston and the Islands to please wait until we get to questions and comments, when he will be able to ask a question of the hon. member.

The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention to bring some order during my speech here. However, the interventions and the heckling do not bother me; they reinforce just how tired and out of gas the Liberals are.

The Liberals changed the date for the election, which is absolutely ridiculous. They changed it to secure power in the votes of the NDP to keep them in office and avoid having to go to an election. That is the fact. They are sputtering, trying to explain and failing miserably at it. Therefore, those heckles do not discourage me; they reinforce the fact that the Liberals are desperately trying to change the channel from the numerous scandals that consume them.

I would be rattled too if I had to go to people in Kingston, having been a Liberal MP for the last nine years, and answer for the number of ethical violations that the Liberals have. He should answer for why they will not show the $400-million corruption scandal and provide all the documents to the RCMP, as well as why they are so desperate that they will work with the NDP to protect the pensions of soon-to-be defeated NDP and Liberal MPs. I am very confident in going to the people of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry right now.

Again, the eroding trust is disgusting. There is very little left after nine years. Every week, Canadians are growing sick and tired of the endless desperation of Liberal and NDP MPs. Therefore, I do not worry about anything else but having an election right now for Canadians to have their say, which they desperately want.

On the other side, those members should be ashamed and embarrassed of what was exposed last week. They gave the NDP special, secret access to meetings in advance of proposing a bill to change the election laws in order to keep themselves in power. They got caught, and they should rightly be embarrassed and rattled about that.

When we go back, at the end of the day, this issue happened because Liberals are terrible managers when it comes to the federal government. Again, this is the latest scandal of waste, mismanagement and corruption. I could go on for hours on end, outlining the numerous examples. There are the Auditor General reports that have come in the last couple of years alone, as well as the ones at public accounts and other committees that are under way and getting more information on the magnitude and depth of their incompetence.

The $400 million was meant for green technology, which are good buzz words from Liberals. We talk about virtue signalling. Why is that? It is because they say all the right things; they get A for announcements, but there is zero depth to the reality and their ability to deliver. The only thing they have delivered is 186 cases of conflict of interest totalling $330 million to Liberal insiders and giving $59 million to ineligible projects. It is not about green technology, the environment or Canadians. It is about lining the pockets of their friends. Twenty years ago, this defeated the last Liberal government, and it is going to be one of the many factors that defeat this one.

In nine years, the NDP-Liberal government doubled the amount spent on consultants and outside contractors. It is going to $21 billion a year. We are seeing numerous cases, such as $60 million for ArriveCAN and $400 million here, of a completely inappropriate use of taxpayers' money.

As I wrap up my comments, I want Canadians to reflect on this: The Liberals have been made aware now, since whistle-blowers came forward a couple of years ago, of the case of the green slush fund. If they took this issue seriously, they would not have shut Parliament down for the last month to avoid accountability. They would not be dithering and delaying instead of just co-operating. If they are so serious about respecting taxpayers' money, they should tell us this: How much money has been returned of the $400 million to date? It is zero dollars, and that is why they have zero credibility left in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to be more and more frustrated. I come here week in and week out to do work on behalf of my beautiful riding of Saint John—Rothesay. None of us is getting work done.

However, I do want to home in on the Leader of the Opposition. Every member of the House, and every Canadian in fact, knows that there is a need for leaders of the parties to get a security clearance. We all recognize that. In my riding and right across Canada, voices are getting louder and louder asking why the leader of the Conservative Party refuses to get his clearance. Does he have something to hide? Should the leader not come forth and be honest with Canadians as to why he is not getting a security clearance?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals need to come clear. If the member is so interested in getting back to work and getting back to government business, the Liberals should provide all the documents as the House of Commons explicitly stated and as the Speaker said was appropriate and must be done. If the member is so anxious to get back to work, maybe he could raise that at the next Liberal caucus meeting. I hear that the meetings have been pretty interesting the last couple of weeks.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not want the member to misrepresent what the Speaker has actually indicated. The Speaker did not indicate, under the current motion that we are debating, that the production of papers be provided but rather that the issue go to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

We are descending into debate.

The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry may complete his answer.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons has the right to request the documents, as it did, and it has the right to have them. That is what the Speaker said. We are not interested in pushing this over for a committee to go somewhere to study it. The Liberals are trying to divert and distract from the issue. They should just provide the documents.

To the matter at hand regarding security clearance, the Leader of the Opposition has been very clear: Release the names for all Canadians to see so they can have the information. That is the way and that is what we deserve. The Prime Minister and the Liberal government have found many ways, as with the inquiry that is going on, to evade transparency. Release the names for all Canadians to see; that is the simple answer.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that as we are here doing the work of this place, we know that outside this place important things are happening in Canada. I just want to say that it grieves my heart deeply to hear that Senator Murray Sinclair passed away today after 73 years of life, which he committed to making sure that the voices of residential school survivors were heard. As the granddaughter of a residential school survivor and as the spouse of a residential school survivor, I am incredibly grateful to Senator Sinclair for his tremendous leadership and work. I am wondering whether the member has any thoughts that he would like to share with the family of Senator Sinclair on this very hard day.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague for raising today's news, which I heard probably about an hour ago, of Murray Sinclair's passing. He was a wonderful Canadian and gentleman who served in the Senate for a couple of years and played instrumental roles in the efforts of our country when it comes to reconciliation and advancing the awareness of the challenges facing indigenous Canadians in this country. He was a calm, cool and collected voice for millions of people. He was widely respected, and rightfully so.

I would echo what the member has said in offering my condolences to Murray Sinclair's family during this difficult time. May they take some comfort during in knowing that he was an exceptional Canadian, one who made us proud and made a difference in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for getting my riding name right time after time. It is an impressive feat and I appreciate it.

There was a sort of drive-by smear comment from the member for Kingston and the Islands a bit earlier, in his questions and comments. He essentially asserted that the government is passing the legislation in order to protect people like my hon. colleague here. I just happen to note that in the last election in the riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, the Conservative candidate, our colleague, won with 54% of the vote and the Liberals were in second place with only 24%.

Therefore the obvious question is this: Does my colleague think there is any possibility under any circumstances that he would be facing a loss in the next election? As well, given that the bill is all about protecting the MPs who are in danger of losing their seat, in which caucuses do the MPs sit who are in danger of losing their seats and who have almost six years?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we learned last week at the House and procedural affairs committee that the NDP was given special secret briefings by the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office, which have said, in fact for months now, that Bill C-65 was an important part of the changes to the Election Act. The reason it was important was that, to the member's point, there are dozens of NDP and Liberal MPs who stand to lose the election next year, whenever it may be called, or if it is called right now, and they are refusing to do that.

Bill C-65 is a pension protection bill to secure the votes of the NDP for longer. I am very confident, as I was in 2019 and 2021, that I have the pulse of what the good people of Stormont, Dundas and South Glengarry think. I am looking forward to being on the ballot and asking for their support again. I am ready to do so right now in a carbon tax election. What I am not looking for, and what Canadians are sick of, are the insider deals between Liberal and NDP MPs, protecting their pensions. It is exactly why after nine years they are not worth the cost or the corruption.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important we recognize that the Conservative Party of Canada is doing nothing more than playing a millions-of-dollars game at great expense. The leader of the Conservative Party is literally abusing power in a position in opposition. That should not surprise Canadians, because he was the parliamentary secretary to Stephen Harper when Stephen Harper was found in contempt of Parliament. Nothing has changed. The Conservative record still is there and it is going to haunt Canadians.

The question I have for the member opposite is related to something a bit different. The leader of the official opposition is the only leader of the House of Commons who says he does not want the security clearance. Canadians have a right to know why. What is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada hiding from Canadians? What in his past is not allowing him to get the security clearance? Can the member indicate why the leader of the Conservative Party is scared to get a security clearance?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with bluster and confidence the member asks his ironic questions on this side of the House's abusing power. It is the government that is shuttering the RCMP from having full and unredacted access to documents on a $400-million green slush fund corruption scandal, and the government has been stonewalling for over a month on being able just to produce the documents. If that is not abusing power, I do not know what is.

We have been very clear. The Leader of the Opposition, every member of the House and every Canadian deserves to know the information. Release the names publicly now; that is what Canadians want and deserve.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take the member back to the intervention of the member for Saint John—Rothesay, who was frustrated that, roughly in his words, there is no business being done. However, if there is an impasse over the government's failure to table the documents, there is a clear constitutional remedy, and that is an election. Does the member believe that if the government is unprepared to comply with a motion of the House, a production order democratically given to the government, it will call an election?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a great way to resolve the impasse would be for Canadians weigh in on an election right now, but that is why there is an absolute, steadfast, stubborn refusal of the Liberals and the NDP to do that.

There is an eerie resemblance to the last nine years in what we have seen right here: a lack of transparency, a lack of respect for Canadians and an unwillingness for the democratic process, both in the motion that has been debated here and in the contempt that the government has been found in on the Speaker's ruling. Parliament has the right to all the documents and to be able to give them to the RCMP.

To my colleague's great point, the Liberals should call an election. If the member for Saint John—Rothesay is so adamant that this place is not working, he should call an election for Canadians to decide. He will not do that, because he wants his own leader to resign first, and the Liberal caucus cannot even get itself organized. However, we are ready on this side, and no matter what, the runway is getting shorter and shorter for them. Canadians will have their say, and it will not be good for the Liberals nor the NDP.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to bring to the House the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington, in particular those of of your sister-in-law and your brother, whom I thank for his service to our country and to our community.

Recently I spoke to the amended privilege motion regarding the SDTC scandal, or as it is better known as now, the green slush fund. Today we are speaking to the subamendment to the amendment, from the member for Flamborough—Glanbrook, which was seconded by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. I will read it into the record:

That the amendment be amended by adding, after subparagraph (a)(ii), the following:

“(iii) the Privacy Commissioner of Canada,...”

The name is being added to the list of witnesses to be called. The subamendment goes on to state, “‘who respected the order of the House and deposited unredacted documents,’”.

Then there is another new part: “‘(iv) Paul MacKinnon, the former Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet (Governance),’”.

We want to add the mentioned individuals to the list provided in the original amendment, and we want them called to testify before the PROC committee. First, however, we are here, and we need the government to respect the first ruling of the Speaker of the House to provide all of the documents unredacted, period. We will be here in the chamber until that is accomplished.

In my first intervention in speaking to the amendment, I described the government's plethora of scandals. It is a list, a plethora or an amount; pick any word to describe the scandals.

[An hon. member]

Cornucopia.