House of Commons Hansard #368 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was liberals.

Topics

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

6:55 p.m.

Bloc

Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, we have been talking about this question of privilege for weeks. Other things that happened in the past could be described as scandals or whatever people want to call it. This led me to the following conclusion on Bill C‑290 on whistle-blowers, which is now before the Senate.

At the end of the day, if we did a better job of listening to and protecting these whistle-blowers who are afraid to report wrongdoing in the government, we might realize that these people also have a duty toward taxpayers.

I would like my colleague to talk about the importance of whistle-blowers who see wrongdoing from the inside.

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

7 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK

Madam Speaker, whistle-blowers revealed everything in all of this. They came to committee and they felt free to talk about what they had seen. Whistle-blower legislation is very important. We stand with the whistle-blowers in this country because they should have the freedom to come to committees and talk about what they are seeing with the current government and the money that is not going where it should be going. I support every whistle-blower. It takes a lot of courage; I am going to say that. It is not easy being a whistle-blower in this country. They are in the line of fire because not only are they trying to get things right, but employees around them may look the other way. Certainly the government of the day does not believe in whistle-blowers because they are showing the corruption of the current Liberal government.

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

7 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

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

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party is virtually bordering on contempt because of the multi-million dollar game that the Conservatives are playing, and the member opposite says not to worry, that they have a quote from a newspaper.

Let me provide a quote. This is from Steven Chaplin's Hill Times story. He states:

It is time for the House of Commons to admit it was wrong, and to move on. There has now been three weeks of debate on a questionable matter of privilege based on the misuse of the House’ power to order producing documents

Who should we believe: Steven Chaplin or some reporter whom the member is referring to?

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

7 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK

Madam Speaker, we have been trying to move on for weeks. It is simple: Produce the papers and we will move on. Canadians want that.

The government has run out of ideas. That is why the members of the government do not want to show the unredacted papers. It is pretty obvious, standing over here, when we go home and listen to Canadians, that the Liberals are out of ideas. Of course the Liberals are going to continue this for weeks and months because they are out of ideas. They are tired and Canadians want a new government.

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

7 p.m.

Conservative

Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON

Madam Speaker, it gives me no pleasure to rise in the House today to speak yet again to the issue of Liberal corruption. This is my second time rising in the House, and I will continue to rise as long as the Liberals refuse to hand over evidence to the RCMP. The Conservatives will not allow the Prime Minister or his caucus to hide the truth that Canadians deserve.

It is deeply concerning to witness the government covering up yet another scandal. According to the program's website, SDTC was a government-funded program that claimed to help Canadian companies “develop and deploy sustainable technologies by delivering critical funding support at every stage of their journey—from seed to success.”

What the program's website does not tell Canadians is that SDTC became corrupt when the Liberals made changes to its board of directors in 2019 under the direction of the Liberal industry minister, whose appointments were made to the board. The website does not tell us that the companies owned by these appointed directors would soon be caught in conflicts of interest due to receiving the same funds they were responsible for handing out. The SDTC website does not tell us that Liberal insiders began to siphon funds into their own pockets and were getting rich for years, while the Prime Minister and his cabinet turned a blind eye.

How do we know this happened? Extremely brave whistle-blowers came forward to call out the corruption they saw while working at Sustainable Development Technology Canada. Without their honesty, bravery and sense of morality, this scandal may have never been uncovered. Thanks to the whistle-blowers who flipped the spotlight on the corruption, the rats are now scrambling for cover.

The investigations that occurred as a result revealed that SDTC's negligence was much more than just mismanagement of funds. Yes, I did say investigations, plural, because both the Ethics Commissioner and the Auditor General have reported findings that greed and corruption were allowed to thrive under the Liberal government's watch.

Over the course of multiple investigations, including investigations by Conservatives at committee, it seems Parliament has only scratched the surface of the Liberal corruption. What started as tens of thousands of Canadian tax dollars being quietly directed to Liberal insiders turned into hundreds of thousands, which turned into millions, then tens of millions and finally hundreds of millions of dollars. Multiple investigations have revealed that through the green slush fund, $390 million in funding was approved for projects that had extremely disturbing conflicts.

What the Auditor General found, which was frightening, was evidence that the Liberals' green slush fund handed out $58 million to projects without a promise that contribution agreement terms were met. Another $58 million went to 10 projects deemed ineligible, as they, at times, could not prove an environmental benefit or were not developing green technology.

Finally, there was $334 million in over 186 cases where SDTC board members held a conflict of interest. Let that sink in. Out of the cases sampled, the Auditor General found 186 conflicts of interest, and who knows how many more she will find. Maybe that is why the Liberals will not release the documents to the RCMP. Canadians listening can draw their own conclusions.

I am proud to say that upon discovering the gross negligence and potentially criminal acts, the Conservatives stood firm and demanded that a proper investigation take place. The Conservatives voted to pass an order in the House of Commons to force the Liberals to hand over documents involved in the green slush fund. We demanded that they be handed over to the RCMP so a proper investigation can take place.

However, surprise, surprise, the Liberals voted against the document production and refused to release the documents to the House of Commons. This is undoubtedly a breach of parliamentary privileges, as the Speaker of the House of Commons has ruled. It is this breach of privilege that my Conservative colleagues continue to raise today.

Not only were the Liberals caught giving funds to their Liberal friends, but the minister responsible was also exposed for handing out tax dollars to projects with no guarantee that the projects would have a positive environmental effect. Some SDTC fund recipients had no requirements to meet the environmental goal set out in the fund, and others were not eligible for funding.

The Liberals failed to manage the program, leading to $390 million going into the bank accounts of Liberal insiders, which is precisely why the SDTC documents must be handed over to the RCMP so Canadians can understand just how corrupt the deal was and whether it was criminal. The situation proves once again that the Liberals are nothing more than fake environmentalists. We must hold the government accountable.

In my previous intervention on the topic, I listed several Liberal scandals that have been uncovered in the nine years under the Prime Minister, such as the SNC-Lavalin scandal, the WE Charity scandal and the $9-million condo on Billionaire's Row in New York. There are many more to list, but I am sure the Liberals know which ones they are.

All the blunders have a few things in common. They all have the fingerprints of the Prime Minister on them. They all involve Liberal negligence and the misuse of taxpayer dollars. Canadians are worse off for each and every scandal that the Liberals have created.

The Prime Minister has inflicted incredible damage on Canadians' well-being. Billions of Canadian tax dollars are being mismanaged by the Liberal government, and in some cases they are going directly to the Liberals' friends, with no real commitment to get results for Canadians who foot the bill. It has become clear that instead of working to ensure that Canadians have affordable food to eat, Liberals focus on ensuring that Liberals can fill their bank accounts. Instead of building enough affordable homes for Canadians to live in, Liberals choose to build bureaucracy and red tape. Canadians deserve a government that can benefit them, not just Liberal elites.

Life has become so expensive that 58% of parents are facing food-related challenges. One in four of these parents says that they personally ate less so their children and family members could eat, and 86% said that they are buying less-nutritious food for their children because it is cheaper. In my region, the King Township Food Bank has reported that food bank usage has doubled since 2019. The Vaughan Food Bank reported that 46,780 meals have been served since January.

Unfortunately, this Liberal corruption does not just have financial effects on Canadians, but it also has eroded the faith that Canadians have in all politicians.

I cannot help but reflect on the 2015 campaign and how the Prime Minister spoke of sunny ways, and creating the most open and transparent government ever. I would like to remind the Prime Minister that talk is cheap. I challenge him to support his words by acting on them. I ask him to prove to Canadians that he and his government will do the right thing by passing over the unredacted documents to the RCMP and let the chips fall where they may.

In order to regain the trust of the electorate, politicians must be held to a higher standard of accountability with repercussions for their unethical, corrupt actions. Members of Parliament are given the title “honourable”. The Cambridge Dictionary defines “honourable” as “honest and fair”. If members do not behave honestly and fairly, I feel they should be stripped of this title.

Last night I had a call with Stephanie, a bright, intelligent woman who has been following the proceedings of this scandal. She asked if I could pass on her message, so I will read her letter now in its entirety. I know Stephanie is listening right now. I have to replace names with titles in order to fit the rules of the House of Commons. I promised her I would pass on her message, and that is what I am doing tonight.

The letter states, “Dear Anna, I saw your outrage regarding the shooting of a helpful neighbour during a home invasion in Nobleton last Monday evening. The helpful neighbour who got shot was my work sister's husband. What the news story failed to report was that this man was shot in front of his six-year-old son. It was the boy who FaceTimed his mother yesterday while she was at work in the office adjacent to mine saying that his father had been shot. It is her six-year-old son that told his grandmother last night that he failed his father because he could not protect him. He had surgery last night at Sunnybrook and had a bowel resection. They are waiting in a room in yet another crowded, overcapacity hospital. I am beside myself with anger and frustration. [This Prime Minister] is Canada's biggest terrorist. He is an economic vandal that has let criminals run rampant, and nothing is happening. I watch clips of what is going on in the House of Commons and in Parliament all the time, and we are going in circles.”

Unparliamentary Language when Quoting from CorrespondencePoints of OrderOrders of the Day

7:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect to the individual who authored the letter, the member should be aware that we cannot do something indirectly that we cannot do directly. Calling a member of the House of Commons a “terrorist” is definitely unparliamentary.

Unparliamentary Language when Quoting from CorrespondencePoints of OrderOrders of the Day

7:15 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

The hon. member is reading a letter into the record. She is not the one who is making a comment. It is a correspondence that she has received. It does not necessarily reflect the idea of the member herself. I will allow her to continue.

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

Unparliamentary Language when Quoting from CorrespondencePoints of OrderOrders of the Day

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, this is a very important ruling. What you are saying is that I can bring in any sort of correspondence, say it is a letter and then read a litany of unparliamentary words because they are in a letter. At the very least, maybe you should take this under advisement and come back to the House because it is a very serious ruling.

Unparliamentary Language when Quoting from CorrespondencePoints of OrderOrders of the Day

7:15 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

I did just speak to that.

I have another point of order, from the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

Unparliamentary Language when Quoting from CorrespondencePoints of OrderOrders of the Day

November 7th, 2024 / 7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. member for Winnipeg North was challenging your ruling.

Unparliamentary Language when Quoting from CorrespondencePoints of OrderOrders of the Day

7:15 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

As I said, the hon. member was reading something into the record. I understand that some words are not acceptable. We can mention the word “terrorist”, but we should not be attributing it to somebody.

Unfortunately, the time is up for debate tonight, but I will certainly take the discussion under consideration and will come back to the House if need be.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Carbon PricingAdjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Madam Speaker, in Adjournment Proceedings, we debate questions that were not answered properly in question period, when members of the opposition ask a question and the government refuses to answer or provides an unsatisfactory answer. This, indeed, is the case with the question that I asked on June 14. I noted that the Liberals had promised to be the most open and transparent government in history and had said that the data paid for by Canadians belonged to Canadians. I went on to say that the Conservatives forced the government to release some of the data the government had been suppressing relating to the cost of the carbon tax, and it showed the Minister of Environment had in fact misled Canadians. I then asked if he would resign.

The answer I got was quite unsatisfactory. He did not speak to the issue at all, but insisted that the Conservatives should resign since they did not agree with him about the carbon tax. We are here tonight to debate this question.

The reason I asked this question is that the minister and his department had withheld a report clearly stating that the cost of the carbon tax was an additional $30 billion, which had not been made public. They suppressed this information and prevented the Parliamentary Budget Officer from having it. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was forced to resort to the access to information system, which goes to the business of the government's promise of openness and transparency.

It promised in 2015 to be the most open and transparent government in Canadian history. It made a big deal about this. This was an important promise. For those of us who go back to the election in 2015, this promise was one of the ways the Liberals, really, ate the NDP's lunch.

The New Democrats, to their credit, have historically been very concerned about the secretive nature of a history's worth of Canadian governments. At least before they started propping up the Liberals, they were for openness and transparency. The Liberals took away that plank from their platform, copied it and promised openness and transparency, with sunny ways. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, they said. However, as I said in my question on June 14, that is a sick joke. The government is so secretive that, right now, Parliament is seized with its refusal to table documents related to SDTC.

Getting back to the question, the minister suppressed information about the carbon tax and gamed the access to information system, which was used to deny information to journalists, academics, regular Canadians and individuals who are in a conflict or have a grievance with the government. It is unfortunate that it would not release the information.

I do not expect the parliamentary secretary to say the minister has resigned as we asked for, but we have new reasons for him to resign. The scandals continue. We have a new scandal wherein he has perhaps conflicted himself in the SDTC scandal.

I will ask it again: Will the minister resign?

Carbon PricingAdjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

Milton Ontario

Liberal

Adam van Koeverden LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity

Madam Speaker, I do not really know where to start to answer the member's question because that is not the question that he submitted for adjournment debate. I am here at the late show almost every evening, and this has become a trend with the Conservatives.

I would point out to the member from the Conservative Party that he has already had 40 minutes in the House of Commons to speak to the SDTC issue. He has spoken to it twice. The Conservative Party had to go back and amend its original motion so folks could repeat their lines over again, ad nauseam, and continue to filibuster in the House of Commons.

Carbon PricingAdjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Point of order.

Carbon PricingAdjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON

You cannot have a point of order during an adjournment debate. You had your moment.

Madam Speaker, the reality is that the member was talking about—

Carbon PricingAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

I just want to remind the hon. member that he had an opportunity to ask his question. Now he needs to listen to the answer, whether he likes it or not. He can then come back to the House with a response.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Carbon PricingAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON

Madam Speaker, like I said, I am in adjournment debates all the time, so I know there are no points of order or anything like that. We are here to discuss an issue, but this is not the issue that he sent in when he requested a late show. He talked about PBO documents and an access to information request. That is misleading Canadians.

The commissioner of the environment's report came out today indicating that our emissions are the lowest that they have been since the mid-1990s, and that is good news for Canadians. It is clear the Conservative Party is not focusing on emissions reductions or protecting the environment. It is not interested in climate change. Conservatives work for big oil and gas.

We have proposed a cap on emissions and a cap on pollution for the oil and gas sector, primarily in Alberta, and Alberta MPs are standing in defiance of that because they do not want emissions to go down. They feel as though the oil and gas sector can continue to use Canada as an exhaust pipe. Sadly, the emissions intensity of many types of energy products in Alberta have gotten worse since the 1990s because of a lack of regulation. We have focused on emissions reductions and efficiency.

The Conservative members claim to be experts on the environment and on oil and gas, but it is obvious, through their speeches in the House of Commons, that they are neither.

Carbon PricingAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that I am speaking to the question that was presented before the late show. It was about the carbon tax. It was about the suppressed report. The reason I asked the question on June 14 was that the Minister of the Environment had suppressed a report. That led to the access to information system, which the minister was using to suppress and prevent the release of the report.

The parliamentary secretary said several things that were untrue. I am sorry that I tried to raise a point of order—

Carbon PricingAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

The hon. member said that the parliamentary secretary mentioned something that was untrue. The hon. member cannot say indirectly what he cannot say directly.

The hon. member.

Carbon PricingAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Madam Speaker, it is customary in the House to give members a chance to correct the record when they make a mistake. That is what this member must have done because he said things that were not correct. For example, he was not correct on the number of times I have spoken to the motion, its amendments and its subamendments. I do not want to digress too far from the question, but I still have not had an answer.

The minister misled Canadians. In my question on June 14, I asked for his resignation. We continue to insist that this member actually do so, for a litany of what would ordinarily be offences giving good cause to resign.

Carbon PricingAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON

Madam Speaker, let me get this straight. Is the member opposite saying he would like the minister to resign because he is a climate action expert and he has put in place a price on pollution across this country to lower emissions, which is effectively lowering emissions?

Carbon PricingAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Carbon PricingAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON

Madam Speaker, getting heckled during adjournment debate is something special. The House is about to adjourn. Members do not need to be here into the wee hours to heckle.

I answered the member's question and—

Carbon PricingAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

I am sorry. The hon. member for Lakeland may want to not heckle during late shows.