Debates of June 6th, 2024

Opposition Montion—Documents Regarding Sustainable Development Technology Canada

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Chair, it is great to see you in the chair, as always. For me, seeing a woman in the chair is always very encouraging. It is great, especially when it is a beautiful woman. I think we could all agree on that.

As we have the discussion, we need to remember what the role of the Auditor General is, which is being independent and doing the job that we appoint them to do. I wish we were not talking about this particular issue today, but we are. The Auditor General has done what we expected, the job that was required. Now we need to do the work that we need to do to correct the inadequacies.

The Government of Canada of course remains committed to ensuring that public investments continue to advance the commercialization of homegrown clean technology in support of Canada's priorities to lead the fight against climate change and to create high-skilled jobs in Canada. This is certainly something that we all support, especially given the issues of climate change and the opportunities to look at commercialization of initiatives that can advance many of the opportunities for Canadian companies.

The government is now transferring Sustainable Development Technology Canada programming to National Research Council Canada. This change will enhance governance and restore public confidence after the recent reviews that we have heard about, including the fact-finding exercise that was run by an independent third party, Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton, and the report of the Office of the Auditor General that revealed lapses in SDTC's governance, which was very disappointing.

The Government of Canada agrees with the finding of the Auditor General's report on SDTC. We acknowledge the areas identified for improving governance, accountability and conflict of interest practices. Unfortunately, this should have been done earlier, but we are now dealing with it, and the minister has put the right check boxes in place now, I believe. The government has demonstrated that it is committed to ensuring that organizations that receive federal funding act in the best interest of Canadians. The government reacted quickly in response to the findings of the multiple reviews of SDTC's operations.

In response to the RCGT report, ISED developed a management response and action plan which set out 22 action items aimed at improving SDTC's governance, conflict of interest management and human resources practices, as well as at enhancing ISED's oversight of SDTC to ensure that SDTC is in full compliance with its contribution agreement.

Chief among those oversight enhancements are actions that clarify and improve SDTC's reporting requirements, which provide ISED with better insight into SDTC's management of public funds as well as improved conflict of interest policies. Importantly, SDTC will be required to declare and document its management of conflicts of interest and report them to ISED. These enhanced reporting requirements and processes are critical to restoring confidence in the delivery of public funds.

However, the government has decided to go even further. Just as the government has high standards for the use of government funds, we also expect employees to benefit from a healthy and respectful work environment. This is why, in addition to the RCGT fact-finding exercise, the government appointed a third party law firm to undertake a fact-finding review of alleged breaches of labour and employment practices and policies at SDTC.

The fact-finding review, which is publicly available, concluded that SDTC's leadership did not engage in the type of repetitive, vexatious or major incident conduct that would constitute harassment, bullying or workplace violence under the current applicable standards. Nonetheless, we recognize that the results of the OAG and the RCGT reviews of SDTC demanded important change. That is why, on June 4, a new delivery approach for SDTC programming was announced. This approach includes transitioning SDTC programming and employees to National Research Council Canada, a Crown agency that is subject to rigorous and stringent oversight of its personnel and of its finances.

The NRC has a wealth of experience in supporting innovative, tech-focused small and medium-sized companies under programs such as the industrial research assistance program, referred to as IRAP. This makes it an ideal choice to take on the responsibility of supporting homegrown clean-technology companies. NRC and IRAP have a dedicated clean-tech sector team that has been accelerating the scale-up and commercialization of clean tech since 2017, offering tailored advice and one-to-one matching with multinational enterprises, end-users and investors. This is something that is very important to Canada. With its proven track record of supporting small and medium-sized Canadian businesses, the NRC is well-positioned to rebuild public trust while increasing accountability and transparency in the delivery of SDTC programming and funding.

The transition of SDTC programming and employees to the NRC will take time. Moreover, this needs to be done right. That is why the government appointed new SDTC leadership, made up of highly regarded and trusted individuals, to lead the important work to transfer programming and the employees to the NRC. SDTC will also resume funding under this new, rigorous governance model for eligible new projects in a sector that is vital to our country's economy and clean growth transition. In line with the Auditor General's findings, ISED will enhance oversight and monitoring of funding during this transition period.

The government is focused on ensuring the continuity of support for Canadian clean-tech companies, restarting funding for eligible projects and maintaining the economic and environmental objectives of SDTC's SD tech fund. This will help advance the commercialization of clean technologies and accelerate the growth of innovative businesses that support Canada's climate goals and create economic benefits for Canadians.

Canadian clean-technology companies are crucial for ensuring that Canada and the world meet their 2030 and 2050 climate commitments. The government's support has enabled such companies to become global leaders in the fight against climate change while enabling a clean growth economy and creating thousands of high-skilled jobs across Canada. It is crucial that we maintain our efforts to assist Canadian innovators in the clean tech sector.

The government has done its due diligence. Neither the OAG nor any of the other fact-finding reviews found any evidence of fraudulent or other criminal activities by any officer, director, member or employee of SDTC. While some of the investigations concluded that there were lapses in governance, including the management of conflicts of interest, these conclusions did not rise to the level of fraud or other criminal activity.

It is now time to focus on the path forward for new clean-technology projects, as support for innovators and entrepreneurs is renewed under the new leadership and transition to the NRC.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about a deep level of corruption that should have been found earlier. Whistle-blowers caught this. If not for them, we would not be here. How many times have we said in the House of Commons that, if it wasn't for whistle-blowers or this publication or journalism, we would not be here? There are too many times.

Perhaps a better way than looking at maybe just one instance of having one organization have a different mandate would be to really look at what the Ethics Commissioner's role is.

Here is the problem with the government. We can look at the Information Commissioner, whose budget has been slashed. However, here is the stat that just boggles me and would boggle Canadians' minds: The government slashed the salary of the Ethics Commissioner by more than $110,000 per year.

We are looking at where the priorities lie with the government, and we talk about corruption all the time here. Why was the priority not in ethics in the government from the start, so we could stop the corruption that we are seeing almost every day?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, if the member is asking how the department is dealing with a lot of the budgetary issues, all areas of government were asked to take a 3% cut, to my knowledge. I believe it was for everybody.

I would remind my hon. colleague that, with three fact-finding investigations into this issue, neither the Auditor General nor any others found any evidence of fraudulent or criminal activities by any of the officers, directors, members or employees.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, in her speech, my colleague said that we needed to ensure follow-up with companies who had received funds from Sustainable Development Technology Canada. The question remains unanswered. How will the government make sure that innovation continues to grow and that investments continue to be made in the energy transition and SMEs, many of which are in Quebec?

For the past year, things have stagnated, and investments have ceased. I am very concerned.

In recent years, the government has failed to protect the interests of clean energies and emerging innovations, and the situation has not changed.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would remind the member that, in some of the evidence put forward earlier, over 500 companies were approved and went on to excel in clean technology. I am quite certain that, under the new leadership and after transitioning, the NRC will continue to ensure that some of the best companies receive the opportunity to move forward with more clean technology.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, Canadians absolutely expect their tax dollars to be managed responsibly, and the public needs assurance that government will go even further than what the Liberal government has done to restore public confidence. At this point, I have not yet heard any Liberal intervention that restores my confidence.

Can the member share with us what the Liberal Party will do to get that done and whether Liberals will vote in favour of this motion to show that they will work toward restoring public confidence?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe all 338 of us in the House want to ensure that all the government's programs and funding efforts are put forward in the very best interest of all of us. I am quite confident that, with the transition to the new leadership under the NRC, there will be opportunities for many more companies to excel, in excess of the 500 that I referred to earlier. There will be lots of opportunities for clean technologies to come forward and help us in our battle with climate change.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, life has become much more difficult for Canadians. However, for the Prime Minister and his well-connected Liberal friends, life has actually never been better. I rise today in the House to speak to the Conservatives' opposition day motion calling on the government to deposit all relevant documents pertaining to SDTC within 14 days of the adoption of the motion.

Let us go back in time and remember the year 2015. When the Prime Minister took office, he promised a new wave of governance, transparency and accountability that, in his words, Canadians had never seen before. However, he did the complete opposite. He established a culture of secrecy, and his stewardship of taxpayer funds ended. SDTC is a prime example of that. The essence of the motion is accountability.

At this point, it is appropriate to repeat the words of the assistant deputy minister of the industry ministry. He was not aware he was being recorded speaking to a whistle-blower, and this came to light. This is in relation to the $40 million that was handed out during the pandemic to well-connected friends because they were having it tough. Life was tougher for these companies and the board decided that $40 million would be sufficient.

The deputy minister said, “It was free money”. He then made an analogy with the controversy that brought down the Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin Liberal government in the early 2000s. He said, “That is almost a sponsorship-scandal level...giveaway.” We now hear from the Auditor General that $40 million is not even close to the amount of taxpayer abuse. Canadians deserve to know how their taxpayer dollars are being utilized and misused, especially within organizations such as SDTC, which are supposed to play a crucial role in our environmental and economic landscape.

This past Tuesday, the Auditor General released a damning report that spoke to what Conservatives had been saying all along: The Prime Minister has turned SDTC, which was supposed to stand as a federal foundation supporting small and medium-sized businesses in the clean-tech sector, into a green slush fund for Liberal insiders. A staggering $123 million was misappropriated for projects that were ineligible, that were marred by conflicts of interest or that should simply never have received funding in the first place.

What is even more concerning is the revelation that conflicts of interest directly influenced approval decisions, resulting in a whopping $76 million awarded to projects with connections to the Liberals and their associates within the SDTC.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

On top of this, $12 million was disbursed to projects that not only lacked eligibility but also harboured conflicts of interest. The government's response, or I should say lack thereof, is also troubling.

Despite the government repeatedly boasting about Canada's robust ethics and conflict of interest laws, the AG findings expose a consistent failure to adhere to those standards. The disconnect from the government between rhetoric and reality is stark. The AG herself emphasized that her recommendations will only carry weight when the government starts walking the talk and following the rules that are already in place, indicating a clear need for action rather than mere lip service.

The members opposite can deflect and debate all they want, but the facts remain indisputable. Long-standing conflict of interest policies were flouted in 90 instances, with one egregious case involving the Prime Minister's hand-picked chair siphoning off $217,000 to her own company.

These revelations not only erode public trust, but also underscore the urgent need for accountability, transparency and a genuine commitment to upholding the ethical standards that Canadians rightfully expect from their government.

I wish to remind the House that this is far from the first time that the integrity of SDTC has been called into question. Before the Auditor General even launched into her investigation, whistle-blowers recorded hours of conversations, revealing that the federal bureaucracy itself had lost confidence in the leadership at SDTC.

The House should remember that a secret recording of a senior civil servant, the deputy minister, slammed the outright incompetence of the government. The whistle-blowers who filed compliance against SDTC had hoped for a management overhaul and a full-fledged investigation. They alleged conflicts of interest and cases of mismanagement.

Doug McConnachie, the assistant DM, emphasized that the situation at SDTC was “sloppiness”, “laziness” and “outright incompetence”. Despite these damning assessments, the government continued to permit the same management team to remain in place, asking them to rectify the very problems they created. I cannot make up this lunacy. That was the decision of the government.

During this time, common-sense Conservatives voiced that those involved in bad decision making were certainly not the best candidates to apply coercive of measures. However, as per usual, the Liberals did not listen. This decision not only undermines whistle-blowers' efforts but also raises serious questions about the government's commitment to accountability and transparency.

Now here we are, around a year later, with the findings of the AG to prove what Conservatives and Canadians knew all along, and what the Liberals thought they could keep hidden under the rug. The government's handling, or lack thereof, of the issue has been nothing but a series of broken promises and attempts to contain its image rather than addressing the root problems at hand.

The issue goes beyond mere management. It is about the misuse of taxpayer money and the government's failure to uphold the highest standards of ethical governance for which Canada is known.

The only word that resonates within the Liberal Party is “secrecy”. Canadians deserve to know the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Taxpayer money was squandered, and taxpayers deserve answers. The current approach taken by the NDP-Liberal government is akin to asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

The Auditor General's decision to launch an investigation last year was a step in the right direction, but it should not have come to this. We are thankful for her work, but report 6 on SDTC is one piece of the puzzle. In response to the report, the government has axed the green slush fund. The Liberals want Canadians to move on and forget about the mismanagement, their corruption and blatant conflict of interest breaches. They want us to focus on other issues. We will not let that happen.

On behalf of our Conservative leader and our next great prime minister, and for the transparency of Canadians, the Conservatives stand today to order the government, SDTC and the Auditor General of Canada to deposit all relevant documents related to the program within 14 days.

There is a culture of dishonesty and fraud that has taken over this Parliament. Ethics and Liberals, oil and water do not mix.

Alleged Breach of Deputy Speaker's Impartiality

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to put further information on the record concerning the matter that I first brought forward last Thursday regarding the Deputy Speaker.

This chamber has debated several times in recent weeks and months the very important issue of impartiality by chair occupants. As members will recall, I did bring forward, one week ago today, my concern about a posting from the member of Parliament for West Nova on October 31, 2023, in which he was referred to as the Deputy Speaker and in which he appeared in his Speaker robes. The posting was for a fundraising event being held by a local Conservative constituency association.

Later that evening, the member did rise to offer what I thought to be a perfectly reasonable explanation. He said that the posting was made without his knowledge or consent and that it should not have happened. I take the hon. member's word at face value and I appreciate his apology to the House.

As indicated by the NDP House leader at the time, this case is strikingly similar to another recent case that involved the Speaker and an unauthorized posting by the Liberal Party of Canada. As members may recall, at that time, we asked for and received an apology from the Liberal Party of Canada. I will remind members that when that very similar situation arose, despite the apology, regular debate was still set aside, and ultimately a vote on a prima facie matter of privilege occurred.

Despite that precedent, as our House Leader has indicated, we are prepared to consider the matter closed once that apology from the Conservative Party of Canada has been provided. However, without that apology from the relevant Conservative official, we cannot do so.

Using Speaker's office resources for partisan gain is a serious offence, whether it is done by the Speaker or by one of his deputies. If and when it is done by the member intentionally, it is of course an affront perpetrated by that member toward their colleagues. In fact, in this case, that it would appear to have been done without the member's consent is of course material, but it does not change the fact that the House is owed an apology by those responsible.

As outlined in House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

...the House...claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege: tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its Members, or its officers

It continues:

The House of Commons enjoys very wide latitude in maintaining its dignity and authority through the exercise of its contempt power. In other words, the House may consider any misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it accordingly.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that we take the member's statement at face value. We appreciate his apology to the House in this case, however, we do consider this matter to be unresolved and are looking for that resolution soon.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I thank the hon. member for the added comments to the question. It will be brought to the House if necessary.

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]

Madam Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that the SDTC has been around for over 20 years, and it is an arm's-length foundation.

When the issue became live, we had a government that proactively took actions that ultimately, I would suggest, even led to the Auditor General's report. We have taken tangible actions, such as the freezing of new funding and now replacing the board.

I would like to think that the Conservative Party would in fact recognize, at the very least, that as an arm's-length foundation, we have even taken tangible actions to date so we can ensure that sustainable development and technology in Canada continues to grow and continue to receive funds.

Could the hon. member indicate whether he supports the change in governance to the NRC?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is woefully wrong in the approach he takes. He indicates this was arm's length, and initially it was established as arm's length. However, when we have the Prime Minister handpicking the chair to sit on the board and to excuse numerous, close to 100, conflicts of interest, it is no longer arm's length. It becomes another Liberal-friendly entity, and taxpayer monies were misused, consistently, year after year.

To the member's point that the government reacted swiftly, that is garbage. It did not happen. The Liberals only reacted when they were embarrassed by these whistle-blowers coming forward and releasing details of all the conversations with the ADM. Then it was, “Whoops, we got another scandal on our hands, better tamp this down as quickly as possible, call for investigations.” That is my response.

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

Madam Speaker, as a former Crown prosecutor, my colleague understands the Criminal Code better than anyone. One of the reasons we want to ensure we get to the bottom of this is to ensure there was an accountability based upon the misappropriation of these funds, $123 million, that failed to observe our conflict-of-interest rules.

We have an Ethics Commissioner, and public servants and those who are appointed to serve on boards like the SDTC have a responsibility, a fiduciary duty, to ensure the proper use of taxpayer money. Therefore, I ask my colleague, as a former Crown prosecutor, to talk about the violations under the Criminal Code that could be applicable through this RCMP investigation, whether it be fraud or breach of trust.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada is asking the RCMP ultimately to investigate criminality surrounding the misuse of taxpayer funds.

To the member's question, hearkening back on my career, if I were approached by any detective or chief of police from any police service and asked what I think about a particular allegation and if I think there is any criminality involved, I would absolutely say to that chief or detective that, at the very least, we have fraud over $5,000, we have breach of trust and we have bribery allegations. These are serious, indictable criminal offences that, if convicted, would land an accused, or several accused in relation to SDTC, in prison for several years.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague carefully. I know that he had a brilliant career as a Crown attorney in the past. We participated together in a mission last summer, and we had a good time discussing legal matters.

I have often said that we agree with the intention of the motion, with the principle behind it. However, it includes some problematic elements. Honestly, that is why I want to ask him a question.

In light of his experience as a Crown attorney, why would elected officials introduce an interventionist motion, point the RCMP in a certain direction and immediately mention offences? Why not simply ask that the documents be sent to the RCMP so that it can determine whether or not to open an investigation?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I had a great time last summer with my colleague as well.

The problem with that approach is that we are assuming that we are getting the full documentation from the Liberal government. We cannot assume that without bringing forward this motion. We cannot simply hand over allegations without concrete evidence and documentation from the Liberal Party, which is at the heart of this motion.

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

Madam Speaker, it is, as always, an honour to be able to stand in this place to talk about the issues that are so important to Canadians.

If I could, for just a brief moment, talk about something that is so important, and that is today being the 80th anniversary of D-Day, the Battle of Normandy. I specifically note, in terms of a milestone anniversary, that there are only a few of those brave men and women, those men who marched those beaches, 80 years ago today, who are still living. Also, I would take a moment to note what an important and defining moment this was in the fight for freedom and how that battle turned the tide in World War II, breaking through what was seen to be an impenetrable Nazi beach. It was Canadians who led the way on Juno Beach. I stand here today to pay tribute to those men who defied the odds and to the so many who made the ultimate sacrifice. I am thankful to acknowledge the 80th anniversary of D-Day here today.

The motion before us is an important one. It speaks to the very fundamental principles of accountability that Parliament should be seized with. Let us unpack a bit of what we are requesting. Parliament is asking, through this opposition day motion, a motion that Conservatives have brought forward, for answers. Common-sense Conservatives are simply saying that it is time to get answers to some very serious, outstanding questions about the actions taken at Sustainable Development Technologies Canada.

Liberals will say it is an arm's-length development fund to support clean-tech investments, but here is the problem. While the Liberals are quick to say that it is an arm's-length organization that made its own decisions, let me highlight for Canadians a very important fact. SDTC is an entity that is still accountable to a minister. That is a fact. When it comes to the president and the chair of that entity, those are appointments made by the Prime Minister, which we see stacked with Liberal friends and allies.

What ended up happening over the course of the last nine or so years is an increasing trend of Liberal insiders being appointed to these high-profile positions and making decisions that led to Liberals getting rich. That is truly what it came down to. In the recent Auditor General report that was released, we see some incredibly troubling allegations.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, and I have watched carefully the development of some of these things. We have been clawing for answers and trying to get the most basic answers from the Liberal government so that Canadians can see where the money went. It is not the government's money, which is something that is so often forgotten. It is not the government's money that is being spent, wasted and making Liberal insiders rich. It is the hard-earned dollars of Canadians that are collected in taxes by the government.

Canadians see millions upon millions of dollars being misappropriated and conflicts of interest that are truly an embarrassment to what is supposed to be the most basic level of accountability. Therefore, we are asking for all the documents to be handed over, with a timeline on that of 14 days, so that Canadians can ultimately get answers. It is simple, and it is common sense. We have introduced this motion to try to bring forward that accountability.

Let me highlight what the Auditor General found that is so troubling at SDTC, the Liberals' green slush fund. There are 90 cases where the conflict of interest rules and policies were not followed. We are not talking about one or two mistakes; we are talking about 90 cases. There was $76 million in projects connected to Liberals' friends appointed to run the SDTC. That is $76 million, which is more money than most Canadians could ever dream of seeing.

Further, the Prime Minister spent $59 million on projects that were not allowed to have been awarded any money. We are not talking about only conflict of interest. Maybe somebody called somebody or whatever the case is, but $59 million was spent on projects that were not even allowed to have been awarded any money. There was $12 million spent on projects that were both a conflict of interest and ineligible for funding. It is absolutely astounding.

There is an instance that ethics committee members had a chance to talk a bit about. It is that the Prime Minister's hand-picked chair awarded herself and her company, a company she was a principal of, $217,000. Can anyone believe that? There was $217,000 given to the chair of SDTC. When we talk about it being a Liberal green slush fund, it truly is just that. It is an entity that, in dozens and dozens of cases, used more than $100 million of hard-earned taxpayers' money, which was paid to the government through taxes, to pay Liberal insiders.

The response thus far has been the minister saying that we should not worry because they have solved the problem. They are folding it into the ministry. We should not worry about it. There is nothing to see here. We have seen, time and time again, that Liberals simply cannot be trusted when it comes to accountability and when it is their management of this organization that led to the disaster we have before us. It is hard to believe, in the context of where we are today, that this even needs to be said, but no one in Canada is above the law.

I know there is a host of issues that Canadians are faced with. With the crime and chaos in our streets, the out-of-control inflation and all these other things, there seems to be not just one new scandal but multiple scandals that break each and every day in this country, and the Prime Minister is at the centre of it, or his hands and his top people are involved. It needs to be said that no one is above the law, and we need to make sure that we are getting answers for Canadians.

When it comes to the role this place plays, there needs to be document production, and the Liberals need to understand that. I encourage the Liberals, especially those on the Liberal backbench, to not forget the simple fact that Parliament is the supreme law-making authority of the land. It is not the Prime Minister's Office, and it is not the cabinet. It is Parliament itself, and the Liberals have a very clear choice on this matter.

That is why common-sense Conservatives have made it so clear that we have to get to the bottom of this. We have to get the answers that Canadians ultimately deserve. That is why we brought forward the motion today. The Liberals may not like it. This is inconvenient and uncomfortable for the Liberal-NDP coalition because we are talking about millions of dollars that has been wasted by going to their friends. However, it is fundamental for the future functioning of our democratic system that we get those answers.

To conclude my speech, while the NDP is quick to prop up the Liberals at every turn, including covering up their scandals, there is a very clear option that the Liberal backbench, the NDP as the fourth party and the Bloc Québécois as the third party have. They can join with Conservatives, not as members of a particular party, but as members of Parliament, who are here to, first, serve the best interests of Canadians. They can stand up and say that enough is enough. It is time to get answers. A basic level of accountability is required in this Parliament and in this country, and Canadians deserve answers.

I will conclude with that. This is a chance for MPs in this place to take a stand for what is right and for accountability, and to ask for the answers that Canadians desperately need. Let us make sure we get those answers for Canadians because that is the very least and absolutely what every member of Parliament in this place should do. They should vote “yes” to the common-sense Conservative motion to demand answers on the Liberal green slush fund.

Democratic Institutions

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, 80 years ago today, 381 Canadians were killed on Juno Beach during D-Day. They gave their lives to defend the values Canadians cherish.

Today, while remembering their sacrifices, we also know that Canada's democracy and its democratic institutions are still under attack. It is an insult to the memory of our soldiers that we know the extent to which foreign operatives have gone to undermine our political systems. One wonders why the government refuses to release cabinet documents concerning the interference. Can it also explain why members of its own party, including a current minister, accepted money, paid volunteers and bused in supporters to win nominations and an election? Is it because those documents incriminate Liberals who accepted foreign money and instant supporters to win at all costs?

Canadians and our brave soldiers deserve better.

Graduation Congratulations

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is graduation season. Today, I rise to congratulate all graduates, but especially those in my riding of Don Valley West. Graduation marks the culmination of years of hard work. It opens the door towards a future filled with endless possibilities. The graduates' teachers, parents, guardians and school administrators have played an integral role in their success. They have supported and believed in them through elementary, middle and high school. The graduates will carry their words and acts of support with them all the days of their lives.

A shout-out to the graduates of Leaside High School, Mark Garneau Collegiate Institute, York University, York Mills Collegiate Institute, École secondaire Étienne-Brûlé and Northern Secondary School. I hope the graduates stay curious and courageous while they pursue their dreams. They will make a difference in the world.

Congratulations to all. May their futures be filled with fun, happiness and much success.

Ontario's Best Butter Tart Festival

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the legend of the butter tart can be traced back to Quebec in the late 1600s, but the first documented recipe came in Simcoe County, in Barrie, in 1900. The butter tart is truly a national treasure, and this Saturday in Midland, we will celebrate these little sugar pies as tens of thousands of enthusiasts will descend upon downtown in search of the perfect tart. They come in every shape, size, taste and colour. When it comes to butter tarts, one might say that diversity is our strength. Come early, and bring a cooler because we will start with 200,000 butter tarts. By the end of the day, not one will be left standing.

This Saturday, everyone should come join us in Midland to celebrate the butter tart and satisfy their sweet tooth. Let us bring the butter tart home.

Abbas Hadian

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart, but with much admiration, to pay tribute to a member of the medical community in Toronto. On May 26, Dr. Abbas Hadian, a remarkable physician and a distinguished leader of the Iranian Canadian community, passed away. For over 40 years, Dr. Hadian provided health care to countless patients by operating a bustling medical practice and by serving at North York General Hospital. He was passionate about medicine, passionate about people and passionate about his family. From the youngest child to the oldest of seniors, Dr. Hadian treated every patient with exemplary care and with good cheer and humour. I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that he was among the most widely known and admired members of the Iranian community in Toronto.

I would like to thank his family for having generously shared Dr. Hadian with countless patients and wish them well during this particularly difficult time.

Wharf in Verchères

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week, more than 500 Verchères residents banded together to show how much they love the Verchères wharf, which is in desperate need of some TLC.

For almost 30 years, the Verchères wharf has been abandoned by the federal government, gradually falling into such disrepair that access has been restricted since the pandemic. The people of Verchères cannot understand why the federal government is allowing this widely loved wharf in the historic heart of their village to decay. The people of Verchères cannot understand why the federal government has money for all sorts of interference and frivolous expenses, but not for their wharf. The people of Verchères cannot understand why the federal government is telling others what to do but neglecting its own infrastructure.

The people of Verchères have waited almost 30 years, and cannot wait any longer. They are no longer content with a mere acknowledgement of receipt from Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The people of Verchères are tired of being ignored when they pay taxes like everyone else. They exist, they love their wharf, and they deserve to be heard by the federal government.

National Suicide Prevention Action Plan

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the impacts of suicide extend far beyond the individual. Each life lost sends ripples of pain through family, friends, and communities.

The new national suicide prevention action plan is our comprehensive, evergreen plan to address suicide in Canada. Preventing suicide requires collaboration across all levels of government, partners and society as a whole.

Working together, we will enhance data collection and monitoring, advance research, deliver services to Canadians when, where and how they need them, and continue to collaborate. By joining forces, we can have a greater impact. We must work together to save lives.

As a reminder, anyone thinking about suicide or worried that someone they know may be thinking about suicide can call or text 9-8-8. Remember, we are never alone. Help is always available.

ArriveCAN App

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there has been more explosive testimony on the ArriveCAN scandal. Yesterday, the committee heard from Minh Doan, the former CBSA vice-president who is at the centre of this controversy. Not only was he the person responsible for hiring GC Strategies, but it is also alleged that he deleted 20,000 emails pertaining to arrive scam. When pressed on the issue of the lost emails, he said that he changed the battery in his computer and, poof, 20,000 emails were gone. How convenient.

We also received text messages of a conversation he had with a colleague about his committee summons where he admitted that he could not “throw ministers under the bus” and that there is a gap between what he wants to say and what he can say.

There is still a dark cloud of secrecy that hangs over arrive scam. Who is Mr. Doan protecting? Who is he covering for? Conservatives will continue to ask the tough questions to get to the bottom of this boondoggle of a scandal.