Debates of June 6th, 2024

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of this year's recipients of the Governor General's Performing Arts Awards.

The laureates of the Lifetime Artistic Achievement Award are Measha Brueggergosman-Lee, Ronnie Burkett, Diane Juster, Andrea Martin and Wes “Maestro” Williams.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I would also like to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of the recipient of the 2024 Ramon John Hnatyshyn Award for Voluntarism in the Performing Arts, Jenny Belzberg

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Finally, I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the recipient of the National Arts Centre Award, Mélanie Demers.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I invite all members to meet the recipients at a reception to be held in room 233-S immediately after question period.

80th Anniversary of D-Day

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the House commemorate the 80th Anniversary of the tremendous sacrifice, valour and victory of Canadians Soldiers, Sailors and Air Crew at Juno Beach as part of the D-Day invasion and subsequent liberation of Europe.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Following discussions of representatives of all parties in the House, I understand there is an agreement to observe a moment of silence to commemorate the 80th anniversary of D-Day, the first day of the Battle of Normandy.

I would invite members to rise.

[A moment of silence observed]

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after our House leader answered a question and spoke of the experience of troll swarming that occurs online, the member for South Shore—St. Margarets shouted out at him “Thank you for the ammo.” This violent language does not help in a climate where there is an 800% increase in threats of violence toward elected officials. I ask that the member apologize and retract his comment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am going to ask all members to be mindful of the language they use. I have a different interpretation of what that statement might have meant, so we will just leave it there.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order arising from question period, following my question in which I referred to the other Randy, you made some comments about skating close to the line in terms of using the first names of members in the House. I wonder if you could just clarify your ruling. Is your ruling that the other Randy is a member of the House of Commons?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am certain the hon. member understood when I made mention of it in that intervention. If he listened to the first part of it, I said first part was fine; it was the second reference that was skating to the line in terms of making reference to the Prime Minister.

Now we come to a favourite part of the week, the Thursday question.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

Business of the House

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this week, there has been a lot of secrecy in the House during our debates.

First, there were the disclosures regarding foreign interference and secret names of MPs. Some names have remained secret, and according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, there is a secret report that cannot be released. There is also a certain Randy whose surname remains secret.

These days, another thing that seems to shrouded in secrecy is the government's agenda as we approach the end of this sitting. In the Thursday question, we ask what topics will be discussed the next day and the following week. Unfortunately, it seems as though a lot of changes have been made.

Could the leader of the House give us the actual agenda for the business to be done tomorrow and next week?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a secret in the House, and that is the Conservative Party's true intentions when it comes to cuts. “Chop, chop, chop,” as my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine so aptly puts it. That party wants to cut social programs and the programs that are so dear to Quebeckers and Canadians: women's rights, the right to abortion, the right to contraception. The Conservatives want to scrap our government's dental care and pharmacare plans. The secret is the Conservative Party's hidden agenda, which will do great harm to all Canadians.

With our government's usual transparency, this evening we will proceed to report stage consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments, and Bill C-40, an act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to repeal a regulation regarding miscarriage of justice reviews, also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's law.

Tomorrow, we will begin second reading of Bill C-63, an act to enact the online harms act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

I would like to inform the House that next Monday and Thursday shall be allotted days. On Tuesday, we will start report stage of Bill C-69, the budget implementation act. On Wednesday, we will deal with Bill C-70, concerning foreign interference, as per the special order adopted last Thursday. I wish all members and the House staff a good weekend.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Documents Regarding Sustainable Development Technology Canada

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, as the Conservatives try to portray a false image that the government has not been acting. Nothing could be further from the truth, when one takes a look at SDTC and the fact that it is an arm's-length foundation that has been there for over 20 years now. When the government did discover what had taken place, a number of initiatives to rectify the problem were also initiated by the government, which ultimately led to the Auditor General doing the report that we have today. The board is no longer in existence, as it is in a transition to the NRC.

I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on what he believes the NRC is going to be able to do in order to keep the program moving forward.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, here we have a Liberal member who continually props up the corruption exhibited by the Prime Minister and the government opposite. Their response is not demanding answers for Canadians. It is not suggesting that transparency is key. It is not daring to criticize the governing prince of his party. Instead, his response is to say, “Do not worry about it. There is nothing to see. Just trust us.”

The reality is this. Canadians deserve better. Canadians deserve an answer, and Conservatives are working hard to get it. The question I have for every Liberal backbench member, every member of the New Democratic Party and every member of the Bloc Québécois is this: Will they stand with Conservatives in demanding the answers that Canadians deserve?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are definitely fighting against having this motion carried and having the production of papers. There are $123 million that the Auditor General has identified that did not follow the rules under the conflict of interest declarations. The SDTC actually continued to use funds to benefit themselves and their friends, and the Liberals stuffed this board with their colleagues. We are talking about patronage, and we are talking about pork-barrelling.

Are the Liberals voting against this because it is another Liberal cover-up? Is it Liberal incompetence? Is it Liberal corruption? Is it Liberal complicity in what could be under an RCMP investigation that ends in charges under the Criminal Code? Is it all of the above?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question that my colleague from Manitoba just asked, because I think it speaks to something that should not be controversial: simply asking for us to shed light on the circumstances, asking for these documents so that all Canadians can make that judgment for themselves. If charges should be laid, then charges should be laid. If there are further details that need to be examined, then those further details should be examined.

What is so disgusting is that it seems like the Liberals, propped up by the fourth party in the corner there, a weak NDP, seem to cover up the corruption no matter what the cost is. Canadians deserve better.

This motion is simple. This motion is straightforward. This motion simply asks that we can have the documents so that Canadians can see for themselves where the money in the Liberals' green slush fund went. I think that is common sense. I would ask every member of the House to join in promoting that very common-sense idea.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague wants to know if we are going to support the motion. I will answer his question.

We completely agree in principle with the substance of the motion on transparency. However, there are things in the motion that simply do not work. For example, the motion imposes a 14-day deadline on the production of documents and makes a recommendation directly to the RCMP. I am not sure that is the role of Parliament.

I have a constructive suggestion for my colleague so that we can get more work done on the motions. It might be wise to consult the other parties if we want motions to be adopted, unless the Conservatives just want to create sound bites. Those are two very different things. Nonetheless, I would say that transparency is fundamental.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the motion before us, 14 days is a very reasonable timeline. These documents exist. They can be tabled so that Canadians can get the answers they are entitled to. When it comes down to it, the corruption, the scandal, the pork-barrelling and the conflicts of interest are an abuse of institutions that Canadians should be able to trust. Transparency is very key.

We have laid out a very straightforward motion that is an important first step in ensuring that Canadians get the answers they deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I actually do not mind addressing the House on this particular issue, but I thought I would start off in the same manner in which the former leader of the Conservative Party, today's opposition House leader, did. I can understand why he wanted to talk about the economy, interest rates, inflation rates and concerns that he had with the government on those issues. Before he actually got to the motion itself, he spent probably about 50% of his time talking about that issue.

I like to think that the member has some valid points in some of the things that he was saying in terms of concerns that Canadians have in regard to some of those key indicators, and that is why I thought that maybe, given that the former leader of the Conservative Party started the debate talking about the economy, I would participate by sharing some thoughts, some actual facts, on that issue.

Yesterday was actually a very good day in Canada. Yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of Canada actually reduced interest rates. We are the first country in the G7 to actually see a reduction in the interest rate. That is good news, and I want to reinforce that to members opposite. This will be the first reduction in four years, and we have to put it into the context of what is happening around the world.

When we take a look at interest rates and inflation rates around the world, Canada is doing relatively well, especially if we compare our economy, interest rates and inflation rates to other G7 and G20 countries. Canada is doing quite well, and yesterday, with the announcement from the Governor of the Bank of Canada, we actually saw a decrease. Canada is the first country in the G7 to do so.

I address that point to my friend, the Conservative House leader, who started off by talking about concerns regarding interest rates. I thought that was some good news, and I wanted to share that with the member opposite.

Now let us talk about the motion that we have today. If we take a look at Sustainable Development and Technology Canada, better known as SDTC, which has been referred to throughout the day, I believe it is important that we highlight the fact that SDTC has been around for over 20 years. That is a very important fact. Next to that, we need to recognize that it is actually an arm's-length foundation, meaning that it has a very independent nature.

When we think of the board that members continuously make reference to, the Government of Canada does not appoint all the board members. We are not solely appointing the entirety of the board members to SDTC, and I think that is another very important thing to realize.

When we think in terms of what SDTC has done over the last 20 years, it is important that we reflect on the hundreds of projects that have been initiated, and as a direct result of that initiation, Canada has done relatively well on a number of fronts. When I think of Sustainable Development Technology Canada over the years, I think of quality air, clean water, enriched soil and the type of technology that needs to be developed in order to provide that quality, as well as to look at environmental initiatives that will have an impact not only here in Canada, but around the world.

As an arm's-length foundation, many of the investments have allowed Canadian companies not only to create jobs in Canada, not only to ensure that we have a healthier environment, but also to lead the world in many areas, and so we are contributing to technological advancements around the world through SDTC.

When we think of how the government provides funds to support Canadian companies that have the potential to be world leaders in technology, as a political entity, the Liberal Party has valued and recognized the importance of the government being involved indirectly, which is why it is in support of the foundation. The foundation, as I pointed out, was created 20 years ago. Obviously, it has survived a good number of years, even under Stephen Harper. We recognize the fact that the foundation continued to receive support. I suspect, with the millions of dollars that it has received over the years, that many of those Canadian-based companies, and the fine work they have done in terms of the advancement of technology, have contributed in many different ways, not only here, but abroad.

If we look at some of the companies that have benefited by it, three things come to my mind. I think of water, whether it is water treatment or whatever it might be. I think of energy with Manitoba and Quebec, two provinces that have so much development in hydro. There is so much potential in that industry and Canada, on many fronts, leads the way, because, in good part, of agencies such as SDTC, along with other levels of government and their investments or the national government's investments. When I think of water, energy and agriculture, all one really needs to do is take a look at the last few years to see how those three items come to the top of mind for me personally and why I believe it was important that the government take action on the issue.

Let us put it in perspective in terms of what has actually taken place. There were concerns raised a couple years back in regards to how SDTC was being governed, and employees and others had legitimate concerns. That was brought to the attention of the government. The government intentionally chose to look into the matter with not one, but two internal-type reviews, one being an external third party from within the department. An assessment was done and that report came out last fall. The government was concerned about the report and ultimately froze the new funding going to SDTC. The report, at least in part, caused the Auditor General of Canada to take note and to look into the matter. As a direct result of that, what we saw was the report that was just released earlier this week.

When the report was released, the government, as it has in the past, consistently acknowledged that we have independent offices of the House of Commons to support members and to ensure that there is a higher sense of transparency and accountability. Through that report, we get a much clearer sense of the serious issues that had to be addressed. We are taking actions based on many of the report's recommendations. The government respects the recommendations and continues to follow them and the thoughts flowing out of that report.

Some tangible actions have already been taken. There is no longer a board and we have put into place a transitionary board with retired deputy ministers; I believe there are three retired deputy ministers. We are looking at how ensure that there is ongoing governance that will reinstate public confidence in a program that, generally speaking, has delivered for Canadians. We recognize that there have been some issues. We are not denying that. That is why we are dealing with the governance issue today and it is now being transferred over into the jurisdiction of the NRC.

We are taking it away from a foundation-type of board model, which is arm's-length from the government, and we are putting it into a Crown corporation, where there is the opportunity to ensure more direct accountability. I see that as a very strong, tangible action. When we first heard about the issue, the minister took action to ensure that we could find out more information as to what was taking place. For the Conservatives opposite to try to give an impression that the government has not been taking action, I think, is somewhat misleading.

At the end of the day, when a government spends a great deal of money, sometimes money is spent in an inappropriate fashion. When that takes place, I would suggest that it is important to watch the actions of the government to ensure public confidence, transparency and integrity of the system, a higher sense of oversight and a better sense of accountability. Changing that governance, ultimately, is going to ensure all of that.

The NRC has done some wonderful things in Canada. It has an infrastructure that is already in place. I suspect that many individuals from SDTC will have the opportunity to continue, to ensure that those jobs are in fact being taken into consideration. Think about the programs that are out there. I do not know all of the Canadian-based companies that have received support, but there are quite a few of them and many of them are ongoing. We are talking about hundreds over the years, so it is important that we continue with the program itself. This is where it will be interesting to hear from members of the Conservative Party in terms of where they see the program or the initiative.

Stephen Harper supported it, but we know that there has been a hard right turn within the Conservative Party. Just like Erin O'Toole supported a price on pollution, today's Conservatives do not support a price on pollution. Do they support having greener grants and support programs? Is that part of the motivation? They have not been clear on that issue.

Instead of having a substantive debate in regard to the benefits that have been realized, whether it is the jobs, the economics or the environment and the world-leading technology that is being developed, the Conservatives' sole focus is to try to shift the blame and say that the government has not been responding to the issues as they have been coming up, and then they try to label our government as corrupt. Nothing could be further from the truth on this issue.

It is interesting, when we do a comparison. When Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister, we had the ETS scandal, and I made reference to it earlier. A number of people across the way had that shell shock-type of look, or one of a deer caught in the headlights. Maybe they should look it up. That was a technology service contract and, indirectly, the Conservative leader himself would have been somewhat associated with it, at least for a portion of his time with the Stephen Harper government. That was a $400-million contract.

If the Conservatives want to talk about corruption, they should take a look at the allegations that were being made back then. Now contrast how the Conservative Party approached that mega-scandal with what they are saying today. We can see that it is quite different. Today's Conservative Party looks at things in a very different light. What we see is a Conservative Party that really has one or two issues that they want to focus on, and if we try to change that focus, the Conservatives get upset.

Conservatives want to focus on personalizing politics. They want to divide Canadians. They want to try to give the impression that Canada is broken, and that the institution of Parliament is not working. On the one hand, that is the type of messaging that we see time and time again. Character assassination is on the top of that list. The Conservatives are trying to feed the far right, and get them upset, angry and motivated to do the things that we are seeing today, which is somewhat disappointing in many ways.

On the other hand, the Conservatives go around, spreading misinformation on issues, such as the carbon rebate versus the carbon tax. I would suggest that the issue we have before us today is an issue the Liberal government is taking seriously. It has demonstrated that by the actions that we have taken to date.

We are going to ensure that there is a high sense of accountability and transparency on the issue. We are going to ensure that, at the end of the day, Canadian taxpayers are protected, so the program will lead to ongoing clean energy and worldwide recognition of the advancements that Canada is making on technology.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals talk a lot about climate change, day in and day out. They use it to justify imposing a carbon tax that does nothing to change the climate but essentially impoverishes Canadians and shuts down industry.

Sustainable Development Technology Canada was doing a good job under the appointees by Harper. As a matter of fact, it was examined by the Auditor General and got a AAA rating, a great record. However, since that time, more recently, the Auditor General has released a report saying that it is a mess. It is a scandal. They are Liberal insiders. This was supposed to be for green technology, but it is a slush fund. They cannot even trace where a lot of the funds are going.

Could the member admit that it is really about making Liberal-friendly appointees and their companies rich and has nothing to do with climate change at all?