Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since my Conservative friends have had no qualms about monopolizing the House's resources for a month and a half now, I am sure that my colleague will not have a problem with the question that I am going to ask him, which has nothing to do with the speech that he gave.

We recently learned that French is the 11th most spoken language in Vancouver, the 12th most spoken language in Calgary and the 17th most spoken language in Toronto. What will a Conservative government do to reverse that trend, which shows that French is disappearing in Canada?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could get the member to repeat the question. It was not coming through in the translation.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I would be happy to do that, Mr. Speaker.

Since my Conservative friends have had no qualms about repeating the same speech over and over again for the past month and a half, I am sure that my colleague will have no problem with me asking him a question that has nothing to do with his speech.

There are two official languages in this country, English and French. We recently learned that French is the 11th most spoken language in Vancouver, the 12th most spoken language in Calgary and, believe it or not, the 17th most spoken language in Toronto, Canada's largest officially bilingual city. Clearly, the Liberal government has failed to fulfill its obligation to protect French in this country.

French is dying out. What are the Conservatives going to do to reverse this trend?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his excellent question, and I apologize for not getting the translation right the first time.

I want to commend him for it, because in my own constituency, I have French communities. I grew up with and went to school with persons of French culture and heritage in my own little area of southwest Manitoba. We are certainly a bilingual province with St. Boniface and St. Vital.

My colleagues from all sides of the House acknowledge that in Manitoba and want to continue to get to the bottom of issues like this scandal, so that we can get on with important issues like what my colleague from Quebec just raised. One of the biggest issues is to provide accountability and respectability amongst all Canadians, and it does not matter what province we come from.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was troubled to read some remarks that the hon. member's leader made a few days back when he called municipal politicians “incompetent, greedy [and] money-hungry”.

I was thinking about all of the municipal councils in the wonderful region that I represent, in places like Fort St. James, Fraser Lake, Burns Lake and Masset, small communities where people put their names forward in local elections and work for almost no money so that they can better their community. These are some of the most community-minded, selfless individuals in our country.

I wonder if the member could comment on the local governments and the local elected officials in his riding, and whether he feels, like his leader does, that they are “incompetent, greedy [and[ money-hungry”.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we just went through the Association of Manitoba Municipalities elections in Manitoba. We have a new vice-president who comes from my constituency, whom I respect very much.

It speaks to accountability in all levels of government. We have a situation here where if we were greedy and trying to confiscate things, it would refer to the Liberal government backed by the NDP, or we would have already had an election to get to the bottom of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can focus on the borderline contempt that the leader of the Conservative Party has entered into on a number of topics now.

In regard to the issue that the Conservatives want to talk about, the government is going to listen to the RCMP and the Auditor General over the self-serving Conservative Party's interest.

In regard to the security of Canadians and foreign interference, a very serious issue where we have seen murder, extortion and direct political interference in the leadership race in which he became the leader of the Conservative Party, could the member indicate why the leader of the Conservative Party continues to hide his past in order to prevent getting the security clearance?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. parliamentary secretary had listened to my speech, he would know that I said this is not a left or a right issue, it is about accountability for Canadian taxpayers' money.

The Liberal government has been distracting the Canadian public and the press away from just about everything except their own accountability for the last six months. It was prior to the House rising in June that these documents were to be presented. The ones the government presented were so blacked out, there was no point in even presenting them.

The Liberals are covering up the biggest $400-million scandal in Canadian history, by their actions through the Sustainable Development Technology Canada board of directors that has not been accountable. The Liberals appointed all nine directors, and they are not taking accountability for it today. Why the cover-up?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree very much with my hon. colleague that the misspending and conflicts of interest at SDTC should be of concern to every parliamentarian. I agree very much that there should be accountability and that the government should disclose the documents.

My understanding is that, in his ruling, the Speaker ordered that this matter be referred to PROC, and then this House passed a motion asking that the government send documents directly to the RCMP. I understand some 29,000 pages of documents did go to the RCMP, albeit redacted.

The RCMP officers have stated that they are unwilling or uncomfortable receiving more documents, for various reasons. I am just wondering what my hon. colleague's response to that is. Does he think that the RCMP should receive documents that the officers say they do not want and that might compromise their investigation?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that the RCMP did not want any more documents. The RCMP does not have to have more documents; it just has to get the same ones it has, unredacted.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the chamber again today to talk about, once again, the green slush fund.

I am going to focus on one particular individual and on how the green slush fund has been a win-win-win for the environment minister while it has been a lose-lose-lose for Canadian taxpayers. Specifically, my focus will be on how the Liberal environment minister, propped up by the NDP, is directly tied to the green slush fund.

The environment minister was tied to the green slush fund before he became the environment minister, as he was a key player in it. While he has been the environment minister, and that is currently, he has owned shares in a company that benefited from the green slush fund and also added $750 million of taxpayer money to the fund. The same minister who is contributing to the green slush fund is ruining our forest sector and natural resources while also benefiting from their demise.

Let us get into the matter. I am not going to use the minister's name, obviously, because we are in the chamber. How was the minister tied to the fund specifically before? Most people will remember the infamous picture of the environment minister in an orange jumpsuit. He was arrested after scaling the CN Tower to deliberately break the law, as “a tool”, as he phrased it. That happened in 2001, just to give a reference for people's timeline, 23 years ago. Eight years after that moment, he would end up lobbying for a company called Cycle Capital. Most members know by now of Cycle Capital and how it has been involved in the green slush fund.

Most of the way through my speech, I will be quoting my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets, as he has done a lot of research into the issue and has really exposed a lot of what the green slush fund has become. Cycle Capital has a CEO who is also a member of the SDTC, or the green slush fund, board. Her name is Andrée-Lise Méthot. The member said:

One director was particularly aggressive.... She was appointed in 2016 by the Prime Minister. Her name [once again] is Andrée-Lise Méthot. She runs a venture capital firm called Cycle Capital, in green technologies. Andrée-Lise Méthot's companies, before and during her time on the board, received $250 million in grants from the [green slush fund]...while she was on the board, $114 million went to green companies that she had invested in.

At that time, who was her strategic counsel? Again, I cannot say his name in the House:

The current radical Liberal environment minister...proudly lists he was a strategic counsel for Cycle Capital for a decade before he was elected in 2019.

Guess what he did in that role? He was the paid in-house lobbyist. During his time as a paid lobbyist for Cycle Capital, Cycle Capital received $172 million of the $250 million that came out of the green slush fund. In the year and a half before [the environment minister] was elected in 2019, he lobbied the PMO and ISED 25 times, according to the lobbyist registry, on behalf of Cycle Capital, for SDTC [green slush fund] funds. He was a very successful lobbyist, obviously, and as part of [the environment minister]'s reward, he got shares as compensation in Cycle Capital.

I will be referring to the shares very soon.

Now let us move into the minister's term as the current environment minister. Shockingly, the minister still owns shares in Cycle Capital, but because of the government's not disclosing the documents, we do not know how much. That is really the reason we are here today, why the matter has gone on so long: The redacted documents, the green slush fund documents, that are being covered up today likely have covered up the current minister's involvement in the SDTC and also how much he is benefiting from it personally.

We know a much more direct number. We know that the minister is generally profiting from the green slush fund, but the documents would get a lot more specific and, I would add, a lot more damning as a result. What we do know is that the company he still owns shares in has directly benefited from the green slush fund, as said the member for South Shore—St. Margarets: “Cycle Capital, since Andrée-Lise Méthot was put on the board in 2016, tripled in value, from $200 million to $600 million.” Again, the company the minister has shares in has multiplied in value by over 300%.

He also said that the fund itself massively expanded under the current Minister of the Environment; “as a cabinet minister of government, he participated in discussions that gave the green slush fund another [three-quarters of a billion dollars], $750 million, of which over a quarter has gone to that company.”

It was enough that the minister benefited as a lobbyist and as a shareholder in this particular company, but now that he is the minister, he is dumping money into the fund, which is benefiting the company he still has shares in. Most folks call that a conflict of interest. The commissioner calls it a conflict of interest and most Canadians call it a conflict of interest, but the government is covering it up.

Here is another quote:

Not only does the line extend from the Prime Minister's office, which hand-picked and appointed the chair over her conflicts, even though it was warned about them—the PCO has said that's where it came from—and not only has the Prime Minister's office tried to thwart the House of Commons by asking departments to redact their documents from the disclosure the House of Commons asked for from SDTC, but we have an actual minister of the Crown, who happens to be the minister of the environment, who might have some interest in SDTC and its performance and is actually financially gaining from it.

It does not get worse than this. Actually, I am going to argue that it does get worse. The minister has directly ensured that the fund his own company benefited from, as did his many Liberal friends, will remain well stocked with taxpayer dollars well into the future.

To conclude, there were a bunch of forestry closures, which I have been speaking about and have been doing videos about, in my home province of British Columbia. We have lost 24 mills since 2016. As part of the result of the minister, oil and gas is seeing its limitations with emissions caps. We even hear about indigenous chiefs of the Haisla, the Wetʼsuwetʼen and others concerned about the emissions cap's limiting the prosperity of their people because it will limit any future liquefied natural gas expansion.

However, the same minister is doing his best to limit our resource development, ruin our forest sector, ruin our oil and gas sector with emissions caps, and bring in the carbon tax, which is making life unaffordable for all Canadians, while he is benefiting from the whole downturn and the demise of the resource sector himself. It is a shame.

This is from a Business in Vancouver, BIV, article: “Canfor's B.C. mill closures prompts call to stabilize timber supply.” This is one way the minister is limiting resource development: initiating and bringing in the 30 per cent by 2030 initiative. The article says, “What’s been limiting the timber supply lately is government policies, he said, including a moratorium on logging old growth stands, First Nation tenure transfers, a '30 by 30 conservation goal, and eco-system based land management.'”

The minister, of course, is all over this. He is one of the guys who are not just stopping at 30 by 30 but actually going on to 50 by 50. This is from the government itself, the minister's statement, which reads:

The Government of Canada is also making progress toward achieving the 25 per cent by 2025 and 30 per cent by 2030 targets for area-based conservation as our network of protected areas plays a vital role in conserving and restoring healthy, resilient ecosystems and contributing to the recovery of species at risk.

This week we’ll be announcing new funding for habitat stewardship as we continue our steady progress toward halting and reversing nature loss in Canada by 2030 and achieving a full recovery for nature by 2050.

It kind of speaks to the ambition of the minister that the initiative is not stopping at 2030. The 30 by 30 initiative has been damaging enough, and now he is going to go on to 50 by 50.

In addition, the emissions caps have been the talk of many of my colleagues in Alberta and British Columbia with respect to the oil and gas sector. My perspective is from northeastern B.C. Many people will be familiar with the largest capital project in Canadian history: LNG Canada. It takes gas from fields in my part of the province in northeastern B.C. and sends it down a pipeline to Kitimat to be exported to the world. By doing that we can actually reduce emissions around the world by up to 50%.

LNG has been a great story for Canada and a great story for us in northeastern B.C. It is also really a service to our allies asking for our natural gas. There have been many countries that have come to ask the Prime Minister for our natural gas, and he has brushed them off by saying there is no business case for it. I spoke about this at a natural resource forum in Prince George. There were a thousand people in the room, and everybody knows that saying there is no business case for natural gas is ridiculous. I asked the question in the room, and I think everybody applauded when I asked, “Is there a business case for natural gas?” Of course there is.

However, this is the same sort of strategic, deliberate getting in the way of resource development and expansion by the environment minister and his Prime Minister. This is what they are all about. Again, we are talking about emissions caps. The emissions cap they are putting on and continuing with will completely limit our ability to get more natural gas to the world that our allies are asking for.

The Minister of Environment himself said, “It's an economic strategy as much as it is an environmental strategy.” Listen to the key word, “strategy”, which I will revisit in a minute. If what the minister is doing is strategic, because some people could accuse him of accidentally ruining the natural resource sector, let us take him at his word. If it is strategic, then it looks like he is deliberately ruining our natural resources sector in the country.

I will move to what the Minister of Environment has also been saying about the carbon tax. Of course, he is the same minister who has been the face of the carbon tax for the Prime Minister for the last number of years. He was promoting the carbon tax, saying at a House of Commons committee studying emissions policies, “Of course, we're going to continue with the carbon tax because it creates jobs. It helps us to promote investment and reduce GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions”, investments that he himself was benefiting from in the green slush fund.

There is a key word there that is so significant. It just does not let the minister off the hook. It is bad enough that he is just taking taxpayer monies in an ethically wrong way. The quote actually says he strategically is doing that, and he is even admitting he is going to be personally benefiting from it: “Of course, we're going to continue with carbon tax because it creates jobs”, which we all know is not true.

The minister told the House of Commons committee, and listen to these words about the carbon tax, “It helps us to promote investment”. The whole conversation is around the green slush fund. It is all around his questionable practices around Cycle Capital, which he personally is involved in, has personally directed money to feed into and has personally benefited from himself.

What makes it worse, for me, is that I go home to my constituents, who pay their bills either by forestry jobs or by working in the oil and gas sector, and theirs are good jobs that put warm meals on their table and a roof over their head. The same minister, who is strategically trying to ruin the natural gas sector and resource sector, including forestry, is the one who is actually personally benefiting from it as an individual.

The argument I am making today is that the minister needs a close look. It is not just that the NDP-Liberal government is trying to cover the issue up for random reasons. I think there is something a lot more sinister going on here and with who has actually benefited directly from the green slush fund. We already see directly that the minister has benefited, but we do not know by how much. That is why the documents are redacted, I believe.

How many shares does the minister have? How much are the shares worth? That is the mystery we all need to know. Canadians want to know. They deserve to know. The same person who sits across the way, the minister, and the one who sits beside him, the natural resources minister, together are ruining our country's natural resource sector.

Since 2016, 24 mills have shut down. Our limit to get natural gas to the world has been capped by these two individuals, who have been backed and propped up by the Prime Minister. It is a shame. People need to understand that the environment minister is not only stopping it but also putting dollars in his own bank account by doing so. It is utterly shameful and needs to be exposed. That is why we have spent so much time in this place trying to get to the bottom of the issue, trying to get the unredacted documents and trying to get to the truth of what is going on with SDTC, or the green slush fund, as we call it.

In conclusion, the minister got rich before he was and he got richer as the environment minister. Canadians are losing their jobs and livelihoods because of the minister's radical policies and the shutting down of our natural resource economy. I started off by saying it has been a win-win-win for the current environment minister and, I would say, the natural resources minister and the Prime Minister. It has been a lose-lose-lose for Canadians and the Canadian taxpayers, who, frankly, pay all our wages in the House. It is shameful. I think Canadians out there are expecting us to get to the bottom of it. I know people watch these videos, and with the amount of views that we are getting, they really want to get to the bottom of this corruption.

The polls are reflecting how unpopular the current Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberals across the way are. Canadians are wanting a carbon tax election, and it is because of this kind of stuff and this kind of corruption. We have members from Calgary, members in this chamber, who have talked about the many levels of corruption that the government is involved in. It does not just stop with the green slush fund.

I will summarize the green slush fund for the folks watching out there. If they forgot about the amount of money that we are talking about here, we are not just talking about a few thousand dollars, and that would still be bad. As a quick summary of the scandal, first, at least $390 million has gone to Liberal insiders, including the NDP-Liberal environment minister. Second, they are trying to hide what went on with that transaction and with the whole green slush fund. We know that countless board members of SDTC, the board members themselves, were directly involved in making decisions about who would get the money out of this board. They were making decisions and sending money to their own companies to benefit from those particular decisions, and $400 million is already gone. The minister I referred to topped up the green slush fund with another three-quarters of a billion dollars.

Canadians are tired of this kind of corruption, and it is time for us to have a carbon tax election. I look forward to any questions members in the House will have.

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

Madam Speaker, the government is going to listen to the Auditor General of Canada and the RCMP, not the Conservative Party, on this issue.

On the issue of foreign interference, let us be very clear. We are talking about extortion and about Canadians that have been murdered. There have been direct links to foreign interference in the leadership of the Conservative Party. The leader of the Conservative Party chooses not to get the security clearance. Canadians have a right to know what it is that the leader of the Conservative Party is hiding from them. What has happened in his past? Canadians have a right to know.

We have found out that the member for Calgary Nose Hill was intimidated by foreign interference to the degree that she literally withdrew from the campaign of the leader of the Conservative Party's opponent. There are all sorts of things that are linked here.

Will the hon. member not, at the very least, acknowledge that the honest and honourable thing for the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada to do is to do what every other leader has done and get the security clearance required?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to ask a question of the Canadians who are watching right now. The speech that I just made was about the green slush fund and how the current environment minister, before, during and after, has benefited from the green slush fund and is destroying our natural resource economy across the country. That was the topic I talked about at length.

The member across did not ask me one question about what the speech was about. I think what all Canadians are asking is why the current minister, who is deeply involved in this corruption, in this scandal, is still sitting on the front bench as environment minister today.

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

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. Government members who have debated today have been totally off topic. The member, in this case, gave a speech about why the SDTC process only helped insiders close to the Liberal government and those who benefited.

I have spoken a number of times about how, in my riding, constituents who were ruled ineligible to receive the Canada emergency response benefit were forced to pay back those monies. The Auditor General found that, with the SDTC green slush fund, there were ineligible companies as well. Does the member believe that those monies should be recovered by the government and those companies should pay back the money they were ineligible to receive in the first place?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, yes, I absolutely do believe that.

I talk to Canadian taxpayers every day. They come into my office talking about how the CRA is going after them for small amounts of taxes the CRA believes they should have paid. They are stressed and in tears. That money is all going to fund this kind of garbage and this kind of program where Liberals are lining the pockets of their friends with hundreds of millions of dollars. It is shameful, and the government should recover every last penny of the corrupt money that has been lost to date.

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

Madam Speaker, I respect the member greatly.

There is a report today in the CBC, which states, “Agents of the Indian government allegedly attempted to derail [candidate's] campaign for the leadership of the Conservative Party in 2022, according to sources who spoke to Radio-Canada.” The article also states that the MP for Calgary Nose Hill “allegedly was pressured to withdraw her support for [that candidate]”, which she did.

One thing that is becoming more and more clear is that there is pressure on the leader opposite to get a security clearance. He is not doing it. Is there something he is hiding? That is my question.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am talking today about the green slush fund. The member across the way, who I respect as well, was one of the members who has constantly said in front of cameras that he has a problem with the Prime Minister and would like him to move over. We could talk about that today, too, if the member would like, because he is not asking questions about what I am talking about. Maybe we could talk about that.

Why is the member across the way asking the Prime Minister and maybe the front bench in the cabinet to step down? Maybe it is because of things like this and the corruption that exists on the front bench, which he sits behind. Canadians are getting tired of the situation and the rampant corruption in the NDP-Liberal government today.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that the debate is with respect to the privilege motion. I know there is some latitude, but if members could stay on topic, that would be good.

I would also ask members to please not intervene when their colleagues are speaking.

We will continue with questions and comments with the hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

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

Madam Speaker, my question this morning is right on point because it is about wasted money. That is really what we are talking about here today with this scandal.

I listened to my colleague give a great version of the events that have taken place. We are talking about ethics that have gone awry. There is $400 million that has gone elsewhere while people across Canada are struggling. How much could the $400 million have helped his residents?

Also, from what we are seeing in the Auditor General's report this morning, billions of dollars are perhaps now missing. Money is going out the window everywhere. What does the member think about that, and how much could this money be helping the residents of his riding?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, we just did a bunch of interviews with loggers in Fort St. John who will be losing their jobs right before Christmas. They will be struggling to put food on the table for a Christmas meal, let alone buy their kids any toys. I would say that that is even worse than the money.

Members can imagine somebody taking a person's wallet. That would be bad enough. The minister has come and taken their wallets, but he has taken their jobs as well. It is the worst of the worst, and the fact that he is benefiting from that money and, at the same time, benefiting from the demise of our critical resource sector in this country is shameful. The minister needs to resign, and we need a carbon tax election today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the motion that we have before us today is all about having the issue brought over to PROC. No matter what the Conservatives want to say, the motion is about the leader of the Conservative Party and his borderline contempt of Parliament by continuing to filibuster for weeks now.

That borderline contempt is directly connected to the issue of foreign interference when we have a cowardly leader of the Conservative Party who is refusing to do the honourable thing and get the security clearance that is required to provide—

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

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. We have seen this place descend to a place where we do not want it to go, but this member knows better than to use the word “cowardly” to describe the Leader of the Opposition. He should retract that and apologize.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would withdraw the word “cowardly”.

The bottom line is that the leader of the Conservative Party has a moral obligation to Canadians to get that security clearance. Could the member give a clear indication as to why the leader of the official opposition refuses to do what every other leader does and get the security clearance so he can become better informed on foreign interference?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, the only party guilty of contempt in the House is that of the NDP-Liberals across the way, which refuses to put forward the documents, unredacted, regarding the green slush fund. That is what we are here talking about today. The Liberals need to do that.

The Liberals need to be honest with Canadians and expose their own members who we are alleging are corrupt. From what we have seen come out of committee, they are corrupt. It is just how corrupt they are that is the question.

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

Madam Speaker, watching the debate and watching the Liberals this morning, I cannot help but feel that this is a bit of a magician's act: “Oh look, a squirrel.” The Liberals are trying to distract from a lot of things.

This includes a real whopper this morning, which plays into the SDTC scandal. The Auditor General found that Accenture received $313 million, or 92% of a total of $342 million, in contracts awarded. This happened even though Accenture performed much of the work in Brazil instead of Canada, as the government has claimed. Does the hon. member agree that it is time to rid this country of the current government through a carbon tax election and get back to some normalcy and decency?