Mr. Speaker, we are here this evening because the Liberal government has once again refused, through its many tentacles, to comply with a direct order of this Parliament to obtain very important information.
Let us talk about the Liberal green fund, the Liberal government's slush fund. A lot of public money, Canadians' money, went into this $1‑billion green fund. Remember the sponsorship scandal? Next to this Liberal green fund, that other Liberal scandal from a few years back looks like small potatoes. We are dealing with a situation where people deliberately ignored ethics rules. They deliberately ignored regulations in order to benefit themselves and their own companies. The people I am referring to are the directors of this green fund, which we call the green slush fund.
I want to commend the exceptional work of my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets, who never gave up, who uncovered the scandal and who pushed past the initial refusals that we got in the beginning. First there were full-blown denials that there were any problems, and then the minister said that they had cleaned house and that everything was resolved. The matter might have ended there. Nothing would have been discovered. Case closed. If my colleague had not investigated further, we would not have had the devastating reports from the Auditor General and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who lifted the veil and brought this Liberal green fund scandal into the light of day. The Liberal government and this Prime Minister tried to hide the extent of the corruption from Canadians.
I want to present a few facts. By the way, the directors of the green fund were obviously appointed by this Liberal government, probably to benefit the friends of the Liberal Party. That is our biggest concern. How much did people profit from this appointment to get rich to the detriment of Canadians and at the expense of Canadians?
The Auditor General found that these Liberal-appointed officials were sending taxpayers' money to their own companies. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner found that the Prime Minister's hand-picked green slush fund chair had also broken the law. We thought she had broken it once or twice. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner recently appeared at a committee meeting that my colleague attended, where we learned that the former chair of the Liberal green fund had breached the ethics rules 24 times.
The Auditor General found that directors had awarded funding to projects that were not eligible. Proponents applied for funding for projects to improve our environment, but it turns out that these projects had absolutely nothing to do with the green fund's objectives. That did not stop the board of directors from voting to grant the money anyway.
According to the Auditor General, $123 million was awarded appropriately and $59 million was awarded to projects that should never have received money. That is not peanuts; that is hundreds of millions of dollars. The Auditor General found that over $330 million of taxpayers' money was paid out in more than 180 instances where there was a real or potential conflict of interest. Directors appointed by the Prime Minister paid money to companies that belonged to them.
These directors decided to give funding and subsidies to businesses that they themselves owned. Is it not the most basic rule of ethics for a board member to recuse themselves from a decision from which they stand to benefit? They did not feel it was necessary to recuse themselves. When someone like that stays at the table, the main problem is that they can make sure that funding goes to their own business. When a board member in that position does not recuse themselves, then no one can raise a conflict of interest like they could if that board member were absent. Those board members stayed at the table and happily gave themselves millions of dollars. I am not the one saying it. This comes from the Auditor General of Canada and the Ethics Commissioner.
How can we expect these directors to follow the rules? There is a simple, basic principle that everyone has to follow the rules. Unfortunately, the example set at the top emboldens people to stop worrying about the consequences of breaking the rules. This example comes fomr the Prime Minister himself, who was found guilty of violating ethics laws not once, but twice. Both times, he stood up in front of all the members of the House and said that he accepted responsibility for his actions and would suffer the consequences.
Can anyone tell me what consequences the Prime Minister suffered for breaking the ethics rules twice? There were no consequences. The Prime Minister said he accepted responsibility and the matter ended there. Thank goodness for Conservative members like my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets who are staying vigilant and making sure that no ethics violation or case of corruption goes ignored or unpunished.
Still, they pushed back hard. They refused to comply with the House's order to produce the documents that would enable us and the RCMP to determine whether, in addition to the ethical violations and conflicts of interest, any crimes had been committed. We would like all departments to hand over documents to the law clerk of the House so that we can determine whether crimes were committed in addition to all the other violations.
These documents have been provided only in part or not at all, or they have been redacted. Parliament has the right to receive these documents. Parliament has that authority. With the power to tax people comes the responsibility to ensure that the money is being well spent. That is why Parliament has the power to ask anyone it wants for documents and to get all the information. That way, Canadians can be sure that there is accountability for the money they agree to pay to their government.
This is not the first time this government has balked at submitting to an order from Parliament. It has happened several times in the past. The most blatant case was that of the Winnipeg laboratory, when the government went so far as to call an election in the middle of a pandemic to avoid submitting to an order from Parliament. In the interest of settling the matter quickly, I am asking the government to hand over all the documents immediately; otherwise, we will go to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I would like to move an amendment to the motion moved by my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle.
I move:
That the motion be amended by adding the following:
“provided that it be an instruction to the committee:
(a) that the following witnesses be ordered to appear before the committee separately for two hours each:
(i) the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry,
(ii) the Clerk of the Privy Council,
(iii) the Auditor General of Canada,
(iv) the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,
(v) the Deputy Minister of Innovation, Science and Development,
(vi) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons,
(vii) the Acting President of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, and
(viii) a panel consisting of the board of Sustainable Development Technology Canada; and
(b) that it report back to the House no later than Friday, November 22, 2024.”